Regular Second Appeal No.1537 of 2009(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 1537 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: July 20, 2009 The Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Govt. of Haryana, Public Works Building and Roads Deptt. Chandigarh and another ...........Appellants Versus B.N.Lall ..........Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Ms.Maloo Chahal, Deputy Advocate General,Haryana ** Sabina, J. Plaintiff-B.N.Lall filed a suit for declaration that he was entitled to interest on account of delayed payment of retiral benefits which had not been released. The said suit of the plaintiff was decreed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Panchkula vide judgment and decree dated 17.10.2008. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff filed an appeal and the same was allowed by the Additional District Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Panchkula vide judgment and decree dated 6.2.2009. Hence, the present appeal has been filed by the defendants. The case of the parties, as noticed by the learned District Judge, in paras 3 and 4 of its judgment reads as under:- “ 3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant joined the Government service as Assistant Engineer (Mechanic) through State Public Service Commission; that after rendering more than 33 years of service, the appellant retired on 31.12.2002 on Regular Second Appeal No.1537 of 2009(O&M) 2 attaining the age of superannuation; that at the time of retirement, the appellant was serving as Superintendent Engineer in the office of Engineer-in-Chief Public Works Building and Roads; that the work and conduct of the appellant during his service remained unblemished and to the full satisfaction of the superiors and as such the appellant got two higher rank promotions viz. as Executive Engineer and Superintending Engineer. 4. The appellant did not face any disciplinary proceedings either under Section 7 or Section 8 of the Haryana Civil Service (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987, therefore, no question of awarding any punishment arose at any point of time during his service or retirement. Thus, the appellant was duly entitled to all retiral benefits viz. Commutation of pension, gratuity and leave encashment on retirement as his legal right that the respondents were under the legal obligation to make suo moto timely payment of all the retiral benefits due on 01.01.2003 within three months positively as appellant submitted all the necessary documents in February,2002 i.e.10 months prior to his retirement, but the respondents did not make any payment to him; that the appellant persued his case of retiremental dues with the respondents by making representations and reminders during the period between 06.1.2003 to 20.7.2004 and also personally visited the concerned officials and officers, however, no action was taken; it is further averred that the appellant, however, got consolidated payment of leave encashment amounting to Rs.2,59,520/- in August, 2003 i.e. after 8 months of retirement; that the said delay of 8 months was Regular Second Appeal No.1537 of 2009(O&M) 3 in violation of the rules and instructions governing retiral dues, so alleged that he is duly entitled to get interest on the said delayed payment. It is next averred that the Accountant-General, Haryana released 75% of gratuity amount to the tune of Rs.2,62,500/- vide memo dated 09.08.2004 and 20.12.2004; that the Accountant General, Haryana also released commutation of pension amounting to Rs.4.27,261/- vide memo dated 11.8.04, after inordinate delay of 1 ½ years that the appellant is entitled to interest at the rate of 18% p.a. on these delayed payment; that the appellant sent many representations/reminders viz dated 9.12.2004, 20.12.04, 04.03.2005, 16.5.2007 and 05.09.2007 for release of remaining 25% of gratuity amount to the tune of Rs.87,500/- with interest; that the appellant also served the legal notices under Section 80 CPC dated 20.9.2007 upon the respondents which remained un-responded; that all the communications were duly acknowledged by respondents, but no response was given and also did not inform as to why, the same were withheld due to threat of respondents the appellant suffered financial loss and mental agony and social humiliation” On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree for declaration as prayed for?OPP 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form as alleged in the Written statement?OPD 3. Relief.” Regular Second Appeal No.1537 of 2009(O&M) 4 After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal is devoid of any merit. The controversy involved in this appeal is only with regard to the rate of interest. The trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 17.10.2008 held that the inquiries against the plaintiff had been dropped and hence, he was entitled to interest @ 9% on account of payment of his retiral benefits which have been not released and also interest on delayed payment of retiral benefits which were paid to him after three months from his retirement till the date of actual payment. Aggrieved by the fact that the interest at a lesser rate has been allowed to the plaintiff, he filed an appeal. The defendants did not file any appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial Court. In appeal, the learned Additional District Judge enhanced the rate of interest from 9% to 12% on delayed payment of pension, gratuity and leave encashment or any other amount due towards his retiral benefits. There is no error of jurisdiction exercised by the learned Additional District Judge. No substantial question of law arises in this case which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. ( Sabina ) Judge July 20, 2009 arya