R.S.A. No. 2318 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- R.S.A. No. 2318 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:- 19.11.2010 State of Punjab & Ors. ... Appellants. Versus Kirpal Singh ... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present:- Mr. Surinder Kapoor, Addl. A. G, Punjab. Mr. Vivek Singla, Advocate, for the respondent. Gurdev Singh, J (oral) This second appeal has been preferred by the appellants/defendants, against whom the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff – Kirpal Singh was decreed for mandatory injunction directing them to continue to pay old age pension to him with a further direction to pay the arrears along with interest @6% per annum. The plaintiff, pleaded in his plaint, that he was sanctioned old age pension after all the requirements and conditions of defendant No.2 – Department were fulfilled. He had been drawing the same from Punjab National Bank, Rajpura since 10.7.1999. Sanction was granted by defendant No.2 after thorough enquiry. He received memo No.1043 dated 4.7.2002 from the side of that defendant for the stoppage of that pension on the ground that his age was less. Before stopping his pension, he was not offered an opportunity of being heard and as such said memo is illegal, unlawful and unconstitutional. He requested defendant No.2 to continue to R.S.A. No. 2318 of 2010 (O&M) -2- pay his old age pension and also to pay the arrears but no response was received from his side. Thereafter, he filed the suit for mandatory injunction, after serving the statutory notice dated 18.8.2003. The suit was contested by defendants. In their written statement, they admitted that the old age pension was sanctioned to the plaintiff by the competent authority and that the same was subsequently stopped vide memo dated 4.7.2002. They pleaded that the same was stopped as it was wrongly sanctioned on the basis of the wrong information furnished by the plaintiff. In the application submitted by him he disclosed his income from all the sources to be `500/- per month whereas he had been running workshop at G.T.Road, Rajpura and was earning Rs.5000/- per month. An enquiry was conducted by defendant No.2, who made his report to the effect that the workshop had been constructed by the plaintiff on the land leased by the Municipal Council, Rajpura for which he was paying `175-70 per month and `355/- as rent and house tax, respectively. He was called in the office of defendant No.2 and was told all these facts orally before passing the orders stopping his pension. In the replication to the written statement he denied all the allegations raised therein and reiterated his averments made in the plaint. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by learned trial Court:- 1. Whether plaintiff can command upon the defendant to continue old age pension as claimed?OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether plaintiff is entitled to arrears of amount?OPP R.S.A. No. 2318 of 2010 (O&M) -3- 3. Whether plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit?OPD 4. Whether plaintiff has no cause of action?OPD 5. Whether suit is barred by limitation?OPD 6. Whether suit is bad for want of notice under Section 80 CPC?OPD 7. Relief. To succeed, in the suit the plaintiff examined himself as PW1. On the other hand defendant examined Amrit Bala, District Social Security Officer, Patiala as DW1, Bhart Bhushan, DW2, Om Parkash, Assistant Municipal Council, Rajpura DW3 and Manoj Kumar clerk, DW4. After going through that evidence and hearing learned counsel for the plaintiff and GP for the defendants, the learned trial Court decided all the issues in favour of the plaintiff and resultantly decreed his suit vide judgment and decree dated 21.4.2009. The defendants preferred their first appeal against that judgment and decree, which was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Patiala, vide judgment and decree dated 25.1.2010. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides. It has been argued by learned State counsel that an enquiry was conducted by the concerned department and it was found that the plaintiff furnished false information and got sanctioned the old age pension. When that fact came to the notice of the Department a thorough enquiry was conducted and it was only thereafter that the said pension was stopped. Evidence was produced before the trial Court to that effect, which was R.S.A. No. 2318 of 2010 (O&M) -4- never considered by the lower Courts while recording a finding in favour of the plaintiff. Therefore, this substantial question of law arises:- “whether the findings of the lower Courts are based upon the misreading of the evidence?” On the other hand, it has been submitted by learned counsel for the plaintiff that there is no such mis-reading of the evidence. Concurrent findings of facts were recorded by both the lower Courts that the memo was issued for stopping old age pension to the plaintiff on the ground that his age was found to be less and that the said fact was not found to be correct. A perusal of the judgments of the lower Courts shows that concurrent findings of facts have been recorded and there is nothing on the record to suggest that there is any such mis-reading of the evidence. It was not disputed at the time of arguments that the plaintiff was not given any opportunity of being heard during enquiry conducted by defendant No.2 and he was not joined in any such enquiry. As per the principles of natural justice, if the defendants were to withdraw any pension, given to the plaintiff, an opportunity of being heard was to be given to the plaintiff. There was flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice while passing impugned memo/order. No substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal and the same is dismissed accordingly. Records be returned forthwith. November 19, 2010 (Gurdev Singh) tripti Judge