R.S.A.No.1536 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A.No.1536 of 2009 Date of decision:23rd September, 2009 State of Haryana through Collector, Rohtak ........Appellants Versus R.M.S.Malik and another ........Respondents Before: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr. Himanshu Raj, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. D.R.Bansal, Advocate for respondent no. 1. Rajive Bhalla, J.(Oral) The State of Haryana challenges the judgments and decrees dated 31.07.2008 and 11.11.2008, passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rohtak and the District Judge, Rohtak, decreeing the suit filed by respondent no. 1 and dismissing their appeal. The plaintiff-respondent no. 1 filed a suit for declaration, praying that he is entitled to selection grade, senior grade, ACP scale and promotion as a professor. Respondent no. R.S.A.No.1536 of 2009 -2- 1 pleaded that he had joined service in the year 1969 as a lecturer and was sent on deputation to the Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak, w.e.f. 10.09.1991. After retirement on 8.11.2001, though his services were absorbed by the University, he is entitled to selection grade, senior grade, ACP scale etc. for the period 10.09.1991 to 12.03.2001, when he remained an employee of the State of Haryana. It was further prayed that the adverse remarks for the reporting period 12.07.1989 to 31.01.1990 be quashed. Upon notice, the State of Haryana, filed a reply denying that the plaintiff-respondent no. 1 is entitled to any relief by asserting that in view of the adverse remarks in his annual confidential report, the plaintiff-respondent no. 1 is not entitled to senior or selection grades. Respondent no. 2 filed a written statement denying that respondent no. 1 is entitled to any promotion. On the basis of the pleadings, the trial court framed the following issues:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get expunged adverse remarks from his ACR for the year 1989-90? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the senior grade w.e.f. 1990 and selection grade w.e.f.1998 alongwith regular satisfactory service? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled from retrial R.S.A.No.1536 of 2009 -3- benefits w.e.f. 13.3.2001 alongwith promotion as Professor and other outstanding dues? OPP. 4. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form and the plaintiff has concealed the material facts from the court and this court has no jurisdiction? OPD 5. Relief.” During the pendency of the suit, the appellant granted the benefit of senior and selection grades w.e.f. 3.09.1990 and 27.07.1998, respectively to respondent no. 1 and paid arrears of Rs. 44183/- vide cheque dated 12.02.2004. In addition, vide order dated 2.09.2003, the adverse remarks recorded against respondent no. 1, were expunged and Rs. 11,42,302/-, due to the plaintiff-respondent no. 1 on 13.03.2001, as gratuity and pro-rata pension were paid on 10.04.2006. In view of these facts, the trial court held that the State of Haryana is required to pay interest @9% per annum, on the delayed payment of these amounts. Respondent no. 1's prayer for other benefits and promotion to the post of professor was rejected. Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment and decree, the State of Haryana filed an appeal. Vide judgment and decree dated 11.11.2008, the District Judge, Rohtak, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the findings recorded by the trial court. Counsel for the appellant submits that the judgments and decrees passed by the courts below are illegal and void. The R.S.A.No.1536 of 2009 -4- delay if any, was on the part of respondent no. 1, as he filed a representation against the adverse remarks, only on 30.09.1999 and therefore, respondent no. 1 is not entitled to any interest and then also @10% per annum. Counsel for respondent no. 1 submits that he has no objection, if the interest is reduced to 6% per annum. As regards the other arguments, it is submitted that the adverse remarks were never conveyed to respondent no. 1 and when conveyed he filed a representation which was accepted. The adverse remarks were eventually expunged on 22.09.2003. The courts below, therefore, rightly directed the appellants to pay interest on the arrears of salary, the pro rata pension and gratuity, which were wrongly withheld by the State of Haryana. I have heard counsel for the parties, perused the impugned judgments and decrees, considered the arguments addressed by counsel for the parties and appraised the questions of law which relate to the award of interest. Admittedly, during the pendency of the suit, the State of Haryana accepted the claim of respondent no. 1, expunged the adverse remarks, paid arrears on account of salary and pro rata pension and gratuity. As a consequence, the courts below did not commit any error in awarding interest on the delayed payments of salary, the pro rata pension and gratuity as no reasons whatsoever, has been assigned for withholding these amounts. However, as counsel for respondent no. 1 has no objection, if the interest is reduced from 9% to 6% per annum, R.S.A.No.1536 of 2009 -5- the judgments and decrees passed by the courts below are modified to the extent that the amount paid to respondent no. 1 shall be paid with interest @6% per annum. The appeal is dismissed with the aforementioned modification with no order as to costs. [RAJIVE BHALLA] JUDGE 23rd September, 2009 Shivani Kaushik