Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sangrur Central Co-Operativ E Bank Ltd. ... vs Sajjan Singh & Ors on 23 April, 2024
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055071
RSA No. 5976 of 2015 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:055071
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(Sr. No. 211)
(1) RSA No. 5976 of 2015 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 23.04.2024
Sangrur Central Co-operative Bank Limited through its District
Manager
...Appellant
Versus
Gian Chand and others
...Respondents
(2) RSA No. 2290 of 2017 (O&M)
Sangrur Central Co-operative Bank Limited
...Appellant
Versus
Surinder Singh and another
...Respondents
(3) RSA No. 5380 of 2016 (O&M)
Sangrur Central Co-operative Bank Limited
...Appellant
Versus
Hazoor Singh and another
...Respondents
(4) RSA No. 5978 of 2015 (O&M)
Sangrur Central Co-operative Bank Limited through its District
Manager
1 of 5
::: Downloaded on - 04-05-2024 03:35:44 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055071
RSA No. 5976 of 2015 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:055071
2
...Appellant
Versus
Sajjan Singh and others
...Respondents
(5) RSA No. 5980 of 2015 (O&M)
Sangrur Central Co-operative Bank Limited through its District
Manager
...Appellant
Versus
Ranbir Singh Johal and others
...Respondents
(6) RSA No. 5982 of 2015 (O&M)
Sangrur Central Co-operative Bank Limited through its District
Manager
...Appellant
Versus
Sukhwinder Singh and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Mr. Sumeet Puri, Advocate for the appellant
in all the cases. (Joined through Video Conferencing)
Mr. Rajbir Singh, Advocate for respondent No. 1
in all cases.
Mr. Manbir Singh, Advocate for
Mr. Ashwani Prashar, Advocate for respondent-Punjab
State Cooperative Bank Limited.
2 of 5
::: Downloaded on - 04-05-2024 03:35:44 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055071
RSA No. 5976 of 2015 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:055071
3
***
Harsimran Singh Sethi J. (Oral)
1. The present six appeals, the details of whom have been given
in the heading, have been filed challenging the judgments and decrees of
the courts below by which, the suit filed by the respondents-plaintiffs
challenging the order dated 30.12.2011 has been allowed and the appeal
filed by the appellants-defendants has been dismissed. In all the appeals,
same issue has been raised.
2. By the impugned order dated 30.12.2011, the appellants-
defendants decided to reduce the pay of the respondents-plaintiffs from
₹14,250- to ₹13,700/- so as to recover an amount of ₹1,11,895/-.
Against the said order, the respondents-plaintiffs filed a civil suit and the
trial court, on the basis of facts and evidence which came on record,
allowed the suit vide judgment dated 02.08.2014 holding that the said
impugned order has been passed without considering the actual facts and
without giving any opportunity of hearing to the respondents-plaintiffs. It
has also been recorded by the trial court that the pay of the respondents-
plaintiffs was stepped up keeping in view the fact that the employee
junior to the respondents-plaintiffs was getting higher pay, hence,
recovery could not have been done under any circumstances. Against the
said judgment and decree of the trial court, the State preferred an appeal
before the lower appellate court which was also dismissed vide judgment
and decree dated 03.08.2015, hence, the present regular second appeal.
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055071
RSA No. 5976 of 2015 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:055071
3. On being asked, to point out any perversity in the order
passed, keeping in view the facts and evidence, which has come on
record, learned counsel for the appellants-defendants has not been able to
point out any perversity in the judgment passed by the courts below.
Learned counsel for the appellants-defendants has not been able to point
out that any material fact/evidence, which was brought on record, has not
been considered by the courts below while passing the judgments and
decrees in favour of the respondents-plaintiffs.
4. It may be noticed that the learned counsel for the appellants-
defendants have tried to re-argue the case today before this Court to re-
appreciate the facts/evidence so as to arrive at a different conclusion so as
to hold that keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present
case, the order dated 30.12.2011 was perfectly valid.
5. It is a settled principle of law that in the regular second
appeal, a case cannot be re-argued so as to re-appreciate the facts and
evidence on record so as to come to a different conclusion than the one
arrived at by the courts below. The jurisdiction in the regular second
appeal is to see as to whether, the judgments and decrees of the courts
below are perverse towards the facts and evidence on record.
6. In the present case, no perversity has been pointed out by the
learned counsel for the appellants-defendants qua the findings recorded
by both the courts below, which have gone against the appellants-
defendants.
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055071
RSA No. 5976 of 2015 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:055071
7. Keeping in view the above, as no perversity has been pointed
out by learned counsel for the appellants-defendants, no ground is made
out for any interference and all the appeals are accordingly dismissed.
8. Pending miscellaneous application, if any, also stands
disposed of.
A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected
cases.
April 23rd, 2024 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
kanchan JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
5 of 5
