R.S.A. No. 1760 of 2009 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 1760 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : 27.4.2009 The State of Haryana & others .......... Appellants Versus Dara Singh ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Addl. A.G., Haryana for the appellants. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) C.M. No. 5140-C of 2009 This is an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condoning the delay of 150 days in filing the appeal. For the reasons stated in the application, the C.M. is allowed, the delay of 150 days in filing the appeal is condoned. R.S.A. No. 1760 of 2009 This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 21.8.2008, passed by the learned Courts below, vide which suit filed by the plaintiff / respondent, seeking declaration and mandatory injunction, has been decreed, to the extent, that the plaintiff would be entitled to payment of interest, on the amount falling due to him, on account of crossing of efficiency bar. R.S.A. No. 1760 of 2009 2 The plaintiff brought a suit, claiming declaration and mandatory injunction, permitting him to cross the efficiency bar, on completion of ten years satisfactory service. The suit was contested, primarily on the ground, that the plaintiff / respondent was an ad hoc employee, and furthermore, that he had not qualified the refresher Course, nor undertaken duties in the rural areas, which are pre-requisite for crossing of efficiency bar. The stand of the appellants was contested primarily on the ground, that it was for the defendant / appellants to have sent the plaintiff for refresher course and to post him in rural area. The plaintiff could not be denied the relief by the shelter under the Service Rules, though fault lay with appellant / defendants. The appellants could not take benefit of its own wrong. Interestingly, though the suit was being contested, and right to claim the efficiency bar was disputed. The defendants on their own, allowed the plaintiff to cross the efficiency bar, and thereby revoking the conditions stipulated under the Rules. It was, in view of the action taken by the appellant / defendants, that the Court granted interest on the amount, wrongly withheld by the defendants by denying relief to which plaintiff / respondent was entitled to. The learned Addl. A.G., Haryana contends, that this appeal raises the following substantial question of law for consideration :- Whether the learned Courts below were justified in granting interest to the plaintiff / respondent, though R.S.A. No. 1760 of 2009 3 admittedly, under the Service Rules, he was not entitled to benefits, claimed ? The contention of the learned Addl. A.G., Haryana cannot be accepted. The conditions imposed, were in the hands of the defendants / appelalnt, and not in the hands of the employee. The defendants / appellant have not only accepted the right of the plaintiff / respondent but also failed to show, that it was not the acts of the defendants / appellant that plaintiff failed to attend refresher course and perform duty in rural area. It is settled law that nobody is entitled to take benefit of his own wrong. The defendant / appellants realized their mistake, and passed an order clearing efficiency bar. The delay in releasing the benefit was, therefore, caused on account of inaction on the part of the defendant / appellants. No fault can be found with the decree granting interest. The substantial question of law on the facts and circumstances of the case is answered against the appellants. No merit. Dismissed. 27.4.2009 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE