RSA No.371 of 1997 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.371 of 1997 Date of Decision:23.04.2009 State of Punjab & ors. ....appellants Versus Amarjit Singh .....respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr.Rajesh Garg, Additional Advocate General, Punjab Mr.Amarjeet Singh, respondent in person **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG J. Plaintiff filed a suit for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the delayed payment of arrears of pay and allowances pertaining to the period from 01.10.1967 to 28.08.1986 which were paid on 15.10.1986 and 08.04.1988 along with the future interest. The suit was contested by the defendants raising various factual and legal objections. Vide judgment and decree dated 21.09.1994 passed by Sub Judge, 1st Class Jalandhar, suit of the plaintiff was decreed with costs and defendants were directed to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the delayed payment of arrears and allowances pertaining to the period from 01.10.1967 to 28.08.1986 which were paid on 15.10.1986 and 08.04.1988 to the plaintiff. Plaintiff as well as defendants challenged the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court by filing separate appeals. Appeal filed by the defendants was dismissed by the Lower Appellate Court vide impugned judgment and decree dated 22.08.1996. However, cross appeal RSA No.371 of 1997 2 filed by the plaintiff was accepted and plaintiff-respondent was granted higher rate of interest i.e.18% per annum. Still not satisfied, the defendants have filed the instant appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the trial Court. Plaintiff has also preferred X-Objection No.2-C of 1998 claiming compound interest. I have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-State and the respondent who is appearing in person. The only claim raised by the defendants in this appeal is that plaintiff-respondent is not entitled to any interest and in any case interest awarded by the Lower Appellate Court is on the higher side whereas the plaintiff-respondent has claimed that the interest awarded to him by the Lower Appellate Court at the rate of 18% per annum should have been granted by compounding the same. Respondent-plaintiff also stated that impugned decree stands executed. This fact was not disputed by the appellant-State. The contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State is that the Supreme Court in “CEAT Ltd. Versus MURPHY India Employees Union (2006) 9 Supreme Court Cases 478”, in somewhat similar circumstances reduced the rate of interest from 12% to 9% per annum. The respondent was unable to show anything from the record that he is entitled to the compound interest. No doubt in the case of CEAT Ltd.(Supra) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case reduced the rate of interest from 12% per annum to 9% per annum. However, it is well settled that grant of interest on the arrears of pay etc.is the discretion of the Court which is guided by the facts and circumstances of a particular case. Since the plaintiff-respondent has been granted interest at the rate of 12% per annum in other connected appeals on the delayed payments, it would have been just and appropriate to grant the same rate of interest i.e.12% per annum instead of 18% per annum as RSA No.371 of 1997 3 granted by the Lower Appellate Court. However, one fact is to be kept in mind i.e.the judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court has already been executed and satisfied. Thus, keeping in view the fact that respondent was fighting a long litigation with the appellant-department for the last so many years, I deem it appropriate not to interfere in the judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court. Thus, no substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Consequently, the appeal as well as cross objections are dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 23.04.2009 neenu