The court dismissed a second appeal alleging denial of military service benefit and retiral benefits. The appellant's claim was rejected due to vague pleadings regarding the specific period of entitlement and missing details of benefits, despite a prior finding of interest for delayed payment.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Regular Second Appeal No. 2421 of 2009 (O&M)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Regular Second Appeal No. 2421 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : 12.03.2010
Shobha Singh .....Appellant
VERSUS
State of Haryana and another
....Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
Present: Mr. A.K. Kansal, Advocate for the appellant.
RANJIT SINGH, J.
The appellant-plaintiff filed a suit seeking benefit of military service from 22.09.1965 to 29.09.1982, which included the period of emergency when he happened to serve in the Army. The suit filed by the appellant was partly decreed granting him interest at the rate of 12% on the delayed pension amount from the date of his retirement to the actual payment. Against the order passed by the trial Court, department as well as appellant filed an appeal before the First appellate Court. To justify the non payment of the retiral benefit, it is pointed out that charge sheet under Rule 7 of the Haryana Subordinate Service (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules') was pending against the appellant. It was on account of accident caused by him where 5 persons had died at the spot. The criminal case was also pending against the
Regular Second Appeal No. 2421 of 2009 (O&M)
2
appellant for which the departmental proceedings were held in abeyance till the decision of the criminal court. The pension was released to the appellant but some other retiral benefit was withheld till the decision of the departmental proceedings. On the basis of pleadings, the following issues were settled:
On the basis of evidence led before the Court, issue No.
Regular Second Appeal No. 2421 of 2009 (O&M)
3
1 was decided against the appellant whereas issue No. 2 was partly decided in his favour. Remaining issues No. 3 to 5 were decided against the respondent-department. The suit was accordingly partly decreed.
The First Appellate Court found that the facts are not much in dispute. The appellant was serving as Driver and had superannuated on 30.09.2005. At that time, he was facing criminal trial for commission of offence under Sections 279, 427 and 304-A IPC. He was driving bus No. HR-56-1925 en-route from Chandigarh to Delhi. He had also been served a charge sheet for award of major penalty under Rule 7 of the rules. While giving his evidence, the appellant stated that the benefit of emergency service had not been granted to him. The appellate Court found that this claim was made without specifically raising the pleading in this regard. A suggestion was put to him during his evidence that benefit of military service was given to him, which he denied. The pleading made by the appellant in this regard was noticed to find that there was no proper pleading made in regard to the period for which the appellant considered himself to be entitled to grant of military service benefit. Similarly, the pleading in regard to pensionary benefit have not been paid was also found to be vague. His evidence was also given on the lines of these pleadings and was accordingly found vague.
The First Appellate Court found that the details of pension, death-cum-retirement gratuity, leave encashment, commuted value of pension, GIS etc. have not been furnished. It is also noticed that the appellant did not dispute the fact that bus driven
Regular Second Appeal No. 2421 of 2009 (O&M)
4
by him had met with an accident and proceedings under Rule 7 of the rules were pending against him. He had also conceded that the pension was paid to him but it was delayed. It is also recorded that appellant conceded that increment for emergency military service from 22.09.1965 to 10.01.1968 had been given to him. In this background, the judgment passed by the trial Court was found to be justified and so also the award of interest at the rate of 12% per annum.
The pleading have been perused by me. It cannot be disputed that these are vague and not specific in regard to the reliefs to which the appellant considered himself entitled to and which were denied to him. The appellant has suffered because of his own fault. It was for him to make a proper pleading in case he wanted any relief. For the delayed payment, he has already been awarded in interest. If any payment has still not been paid to him, it would be for him to agitate as and when it is decided not to release the same since he is facing the disciplinary proceeding.
The counsel for the appellant at this stage has drawn my attention to Atam Bodh Sharma versus State of Haryana and others 2007 (1) RSJ 438, to urge that the pensionary benefit could not have been withheld due to pendency of criminal proceedings. In this case, only FIR had been registered and challan was not presented. The Court had thus observed that pension and pensionary benefit of the appellant therein could not be withheld. In the present case, apart from criminal proceeding, there are proceedings pending against the appellant under Rule 7 of the rules
Regular Second Appeal No. 2421 of 2009 (O&M)
5
for award of major penalty. The ratio of law laid down in this case thus would not apply to the facts of the present case. No substantial question of law arising in this case.
The Regular Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed.
March 12, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant's claim for military service benefit and retiral benefits was maintainable given vague pleadings.
Whether pending criminal and departmental proceedings justified withholding of retiral benefits.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Atam Bodh Sharma versus State of Haryana and othersReferred¶33
Atam Bodh Sharma versus State of Haryana and others 2007 (1) RSJ 438
Shobha Singh
State of Haryana
Ranjit Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
