Single judge order condoning a 50-day delay in filing a second appeal by the State on behalf of the Appellate Court upholding a trial court’s decree regarding gratuity payment to a retrenched employee. Substantive appeal dismissed.
Delay of 50 days in filing the appeal is condoned; the second appeal is dismissed.
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.
RSA 3348/2013(O&M)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.3348/2013(O&M) Date of decision:26/08/2013
State of Punjab & others
.............Appellants.
v.
Roshan Lal,MTO
.............Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH
Present:Mr.BS Sra,Addl.AG Punjab for the appellants/defendants
Jaswant Singh,J.(Oral)
Since there is delay of 50 days in filing the appeal, CM bearing No.8970-C/2013 has been filed seeking condonation of said delay. The application is accompanied by an affidavit of Sh.KC Bhagat Executive Engineer, Dam Construction and Spillway Concreting Division.
For the reasons stated in the application the same is allowed and delay of 50 days in filing the present appeal is condoned.
RSA 3348/2013.
State of Punjab has filed the present second appeal against
the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below whereby the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)Pathankot videJoshi Rajinder Prashad 2013.08.26 16:26 I attest to the accuracy of this Order. High Court, Chandigarh.
2
RSA 3348/2013(O&M)
judgement and decree dated 12.3.2009 has decreed the suit of the respondent/plaintiff and the findings have been affirmed in appeal by the learned Additional District Judge, Pathankot vide judgement and decree dated 11.3.2013 while dismissing the appeal of the defendants.
Respondent/plaintiff-Roshan Lal filed a suit for declaration claiming that he was entitled to delayed payment of Death-cumRetirement Gratuity without deduction of five increments earlier granted alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of retirement. The plaintiff was a retrenchee of Beas Dam,Talwara with effect from 30.6.1979 and was permitted to re-join at Ranjit Sagar Dam project on 19.4.1988 and he retired on 31.12.2003. It is claimed that retrenched employees, as per policy framed by the defendants, were given certain special increments. The plaintiff being eligible under the policy was given those increments. However, at the time of his retirement, the increments so granted were withdrawn and recovery of Rs.50,968/- was ordered from the gratuity and other retiral benefits without there being any specific order by following principles of natural justice.
The learned trial court on the basis of material placed on record decreed the suit for declaration and mandatory injunction with the direction that the plaintiff was entitled to be paid his delayed payment of Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity without any deduction alongwith interest @ 12% from the date of retirement till actual realisation. The learned trial Court further directed that the amountJoshi Rajinder Prashad 2013.08.26 16:26 I attest to the accuracy of this Order. High Court, Chandigarh.
3
RSA 3348/2013(O&M)
alongwith stipulated interest shall be paid within 90 days from the date of passing of the decree on 12.3.2009.
Dis-satisfied against the same, the State went in appeal and the learned Additional District Judge, Pathankot vide judgement and decree dated 11.3.2013 dismissed the appeal by upholding the judgement of the trial court while awarding costs of Rs.1000/-.
Learned counsel for the appellant-State has argued that the Appellate Court has illegally and erroneously increased the rate of interest from 12% to 18% in the appeal filed by the State against the judgement and decree of the trial court and thus fell in manifest error.
After hearing the learned Additional Advocate General, I find that the argument sought to be raised is wholly mis-placed as it is apparent from the decree passed by the lower Appellate Court that while dismissing the appeal filed by the State, decree passed by the trial court was upheld and costs of Rs.1000/- were awarded. It is nowhere said that interest shall be @ 18% per month.
In view of the above, the present second appeal is dismissed as no question of law much less substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal.
26.08.2013. joshi
(Jaswant Singh) Judge
Joshi Rajinder Prashad 2013.08.26 16:26 I attest to the accuracy of this Order. High Court, Chandigarh.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to condone a delay of 50 days in filing the second appeal.
State of Punjab
Roshan Lal
Jaswant Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
