Dismissed

Gurdarshan Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC25 Feb 2014RSA/3966/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a second appeal, the High Court held that the lower appellate court did not commit any error of law in reducing the interest rate from 18% compound to 9% simple for a pending government pension account deficit, as no statutory mandate existed for the higher rate. The appeal was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The second appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs.

Gurdarshan Singh Vs State of Punjab… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

RSA No. 3966 of 2013 (O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA CHANDIGARH

¶4

AT CHANDIGARH

¶5

RSA No. 3966 of 2013 (O&M) Date of Decision: 25.2.2014

Gurdarshan Singh

.....Appellant

Versus

State of Punjab and others

¶10

.....Respondents

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK

¶12

Present: Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate for the appellant.

¶13

¶14

1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶15

2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ****

¶16

RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK J.

¶17

Plaintiff is in second appeal, against the judgment of reversal whereby the learned District Judge, Faridkot, partly allowed the first appeal of the defendants-respondents, against the judgment of the learned trial court.

¶18

Succinctly put, facts of the case are that appellant-Gurdarshan Singh filed a suit for mandatory injunction seeking a mandate against the defendants to pay the missing credits of G.P. Fund, deposited by the plaintiffs in the year 1988-89, alongwith interest. It was pleaded that plaintiff joined the respondent-department in the year 1971 as a telephone attendant and later on, he was promoted as signaler and again, he was

¶19

Kumar Amit 2014.05.13 13:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶20

RSA No. 3966 of 2013 (O&M) 2

¶21

promoted as Head Signaler, in the year 2005 and ultimately, he was retired on 28.2.2007, from the office of Canal Telegraph Office, Ludhiana, Department of Irrigation Division, Ropar, Sarhind Canal Circle Ludhiana, as Head Signaler. The entire service record of the plaintiff was blemish free. The defendants had allotted GPF number to the plaintiff, as per rules of the department and his number was PWD/OLD/PB 29803 and thereafter, in the year 1990, new GPF number was awarded to the plaintiff, which was (New) PBIRR-MISC (F)-1013. At the time of retirement of the plaintiff, the defendants failed to pay the amount of GP. Fund alongwith interest, which was deposited by the plaintiff, in his account (NO. PWD/OLD/PB29803), in the year 1988-89. Unfortunately, at the time of issuing slip and preparing the record for the year 1990-91, the amount deposited by the plaintiff, in the year 1988-89, has not been credited in the GPF account of the plaintiff and this happened, due to negligent attitude of the officials concerned of the department. The plaintiff had brought to the notice of the concerned officials, verbally and by giving written representations, from time to time, but however, the defendants faile to make correction, in GPF account of the plaintiff by crediting the amount of missing credits of GP Fund. Even, notice under Section 80 Code of Civil Procedure was served upon the defendants, before the institution of the suit, but to no effect and the same necessitated the filing of the present suit.

¶22

In pursuance of notice issued by the Court, defendants made appearance and filed their respective written statements. Defendants No. 1,2,3 and 5, in their separate written statement, raised preliminary objections, thereby disputing the maintainability of the suit, in the present

¶23

Kumar Amit 2014.05.13 13:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶24

RSA No. 3966 of 2013 (O&M) 3

¶25

form and also the legality of the notice, under Section 80 CPC was challenged. The jurisdiction of the Court, at Faridkot was also denied. Even, the suit was claimed, to be bad for misjoinder of the parties. On merits, the employment of the plaintiff, as such, has not been disputed. Also, further, it is submitted that previously GPF account No. PWD/PB29803 was maintained by the Accountant General (A&E), Punjab, Chandigarh up to 31.3.1989. Thereafter, Accountant General (A&E), Punjab, Chandigarh had transferred all the GPF accounts to the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Works, Punjab, Chandigarh and new GPF account No. 1013 was allotted to the plaintiff by the Chief Engineer. Defendant No.4 had maintained plaintiffs GPF account, only up to March 1989. GP Fund balance, amounting to `1,32,341/-, as on 31.3.2000, shown at Sr. No.24, was transferred by Chief Engineer, Irrigation Works, Punjab Chandigarh, vide letter No.1848/GPF dated 28.2.2002, to the office of defendant No.5, where, the account was maintained up to 2005-06, till the transfer of the plaintiff, to the office of Executive Engineer, Ropar and during the period, there was no lapse, on the part of defendant No.5. The plaintiff has no claim, qua defendant No.5. As such, a prayer was made for dismissal of the suit.

¶26

Defendant No.4, in its separate written statement, has claimed that the final payment of GP Fund, at the time of retirement, is to be made by his new Accounts Maintaining Authority (i.e. Chief Engineer Punjab, PWD (B&R), Branch Patiala. Defendant No.4 maintained GP Fund account of the plaintiff till March, 1989 and, thereafter, the same was maintained by his new Accounts Maintaining Authority. GP Fund balance amounting to

¶27

Kumar Amit 2014.05.13 13:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶28

RSA No. 3966 of 2013 (O&M)

¶29

¶30

`14,710/- up to 31.3.1989, already stood transferred to his new AMA, vide letter dated 19.12.1995 alongwith intimation of missing credits, for the months of 9/78, 12/78 to 3/79, 6/86, 7/86, 8/87, 10/87, 12/87 to 3/88, 8/88, 10/88 and 11/88, which are to be adjusted by his new Accounts Maintaining Authority, in terms of Punjab Government notification No.4569 dated 12.6.92. The balance, as on 31.3.1989, was to be carried forward by the department of the plaintiff, as on 1.4.1989. As such, a prayer has been made for the dismissal of the suit.

¶31

On completion of pleadings of the parties, learned trial court framed the following issues:-

¶32

“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of mandatory injunction, as prayed for?OPP.

¶33

2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form?OPD

¶34

3. Whether no valid notice under Section 80 CPC served upon the defendants before filing this suit?OPD

¶35

4. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad for misjoinder of the parties?OPD

¶36

5. Relief.”

¶37

In order to prove their respective stands taken, both the parties led their documentary as well as oral evidence. After hearing both the parties and going through the evidence brought on record, learned trial court came to the conclusion that plaintiff has duly proved his case. Accordingly, suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 13.9.2012. Feeling aggrieved, defendants filed their first appeal before the learned District Judge, Faridkot

¶38

Kumar Amit 2014.05.13 13:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶39

RSA No. 3966 of 2013 (O&M)

¶40

¶41

which came to be partly allowed vide impugned judgment and decree dated 8.3.2013. Hence this appeal at the hands of the plaintiff.

¶42

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that learned trial court rightly appreciated the true facts of the case in the correct perspective and the suit was decreed, as prayed for. Appellant was found entitled to receive a missing credit for an amount of `14,710/- alongwith compound interest @ 18% per annum from the date of actual accrual till realisation of full and final payment. He further submits that since the learned lower appellate court failed to appreciate the abovesaid entitlement of the appellant alongwith interest which was undisputed on record, the impugned judgment and decree were not sustainable in law. He concluded by submitting that learned District Judge has proceeded on a misconceived approach, while reducing the rate of interest from 18% per annum compound to 9% per annum simple interest. He prays for setting the impugned judgment and decree, by allowing the present appeal.

¶43

Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant at considerable length, after careful perusal of the record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced, this Court is of the considered opinion that in the given fact situation of the case, no interference is warranted at the hands of this Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure ('CPC' for short). To say so, reasons are more than one, which are being recorded hereinafter.

¶44

The short and simple issue involved herein is, as to whether the learned District Judge was justified in reducing the rate of interest from 18% compound to 9% per annum simple interest. An amount of `14,710/-

¶45

Kumar Amit 2014.05.13 13:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶46

RSA No. 3966 of 2013 (O&M)

¶47

¶48

on account of missing credits was not in dispute and both the courts have rightly held the appellant entitled for receiving this amount. The learned trial court decreed the suit as prayed for directing the defendants to pay an amount of `14,710/- alongwith compound interest @ 18%. However, first appellate court reduced interest from 18% compound to 9% simple interest, thereby partly allowing the appeal of the State of Punjab. Thus, the only aspect of the matter to be considered by this Court is whether the learned District Judge has committed any error of law, while reducing the rate of interest from 18% compound to 9% per annum simple interest.

¶49

In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, there is nothing on record to suggest that learned District Judge either proceeded on misconceived approach or has committed any error of law. Learned District Judge has recorded sound reasons while partly allowing the appeal of the State of Punjab. Having said that, this Court feels no hesitation to conclude that learned District Judge, Faridkot, did not commit any error of law and the impugned judgment deserves to be upheld.

¶50

Learned counsel for the appellant could not refer to any statutory rules, policy decision or instructions of the State Government, which may even remotely suggest that appellant was entitled for interest @18% per annum and that too compound. In the absence of any mandate of law in favour of the appellant for granting him compound interest @ 18% per annum, learned District Judge was fully justified on facts as well as in law, while partly allowing the appeal of the respondent-State and the impugned judgment deserves to be upheld, for this reason as well.

¶51

During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellant

¶52

Kumar Amit 2014.05.13 13:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶53

RSA No. 3966 of 2013 (O&M)

¶54

¶55

failed to point out any patent illegality or perversity apparent on the record of the case, in the impugned judgment rendered by the learned District Judge, Faridkot. He also failed to put into service any substantiate argument, so as to convince this Court to take a different view than the one taken by the learned lower appellate court. Further, no question of law much less substantial question of law has been found involved in the present case, which is sine qua non for interference at the hands of this Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC. In this view of the matter, it is unhesitatingly held that impugned judgment and decree were based on correct appreciation of true facts of the case and the same deserve to be upheld.

¶56

No other argument was raised.

¶57

Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the considered view that the present appeal is misconceived, bereft of merit and without any substance, thus, it must fail. No case for interference has been made out.

¶58

Resultantly, the instant second appeal stands dismissed, however,

¶59

with no order as to costs.

¶60

(RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE

¶61

25.2.2014 AK Sharma

¶62

Kumar Amit 2014.05.13 13:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Gurdarshan Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurdarshan Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijay Pal and Others Vs State of Haryana

Global Solar Energy India Ltd. Vs Presiding Officer Labour Court

Inder Singh @ Inderjit & Ors. Vs Bhup Singh and Anr.

Amar Singh Vs Neeraj Kumar and Ors.

Gurpreet Singh and Anr. Vs Pargat Singh and Ors.

(O&M)Gurdial Singh & Ors. Vs Harnek Singh & Ors.