REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No. 1254 of 2008 1 .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No. 1254 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision : April 21, 2008 M/s Parmar Construction Company Engineers and Contractors and others. .. Appellants v. V.P.Aggarwal and another .. Respondents CORAM : Hon`ble Mr. Justice Pritam Pal Present : Shri Ashok Sehgal, Advocate, for the appellants. PRITAM PAL, J. This Regular Second Appeal by defendants No. 1 to 3 (hereinafter referred to as “the appellants”) is directed against judgment and decree dated 15.6.2006 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh, whereby a suit for recovery of Rs.4,00,000/-, filed by V.P.Aggarwal (hereinafter referred to as “respondent-plaintiff”) on account of his salary and other benefits from the appellants was decreed only to the extent of Rs.1,70,000/- together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of suit till its decision and thereafter future interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decision of the suit i.e., 15.6.2006 till actual realization. Thereafter, the first appeal filed by the appellants was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 26.11.2007 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh. This is how feeling aggrieved, the REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No. 1254 of 2008 2 .. appellants have come-up in this appeal. The only contention of learned counsel for the appellants is that as per terms of agreement between the parties, respondent-plaintiff could recover the amount only from the State of Punjab for the period, he worked as Quality Control Consultant with the department and not from the appellants. This submission fails to carry any conviction with this Court inasmuch as, as per terms contained in clause 31(b) of Contract (Ex.P14), the salary of the respondent-plaintiff was to be paid by the department, but the same was then to be recovered from the appellants. It is well proved on the file that the entire amount of works, including that of salary of the respondent-plaintiff, was paid to the contractor (appellants) by the concerned department of Government of Punjab. In that behalf, there are concurrent findings of the courts below that the respondent-plaintiff is entitled to an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month from 1.2.1998 till June, 1999 from the appellants and none else. No other point has been urged or argued. Even otherwise, learned counsel for the appellants could not make out any substantial question of law for consideration by this Court in this Regular Second Appeal. Hence, this Regular Second Appeal is dismissed in limine. [ PRITAM PAL ] April 21, 2008 JUDGE som