Punjab-Haryana High Court
Haryana State vs Amar Singh Raghava on 7 May, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:063246
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
213
RSA-4111-1999 (O&M)
Date of decision : 07.05.2024
Haryana State and others ....Appellants
V/S
Amar Singh Raghava ....Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR
Present: Mr. Saurabh Mohunta, D.A.G., Haryana
for the appellants.
Mr. Sujeet Kumar, Advocate for
Mr. Amar Vivek, Advocate for the respondent.
****
NAMIT KUMAR, J. (ORAL)
1. The appellant-State has filed the instant regular second
appeal against judgment and decree dated 30.04.1999, whereby learned
Additional District Judge, Hisar, while allowing the appeal filed by the
respondent/plaintiff has set aside the judgment and decree dated
01.05.1997 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hisar
dismissing the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff. Parties to the lis are
hereinafter shall be referred to by their original position in the suit.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for
declaration claiming retiral benefits and salary for the period from
01.09.1992 to 17.09.1992. During the pendency of the suit, the retiral
dues of the plaintiff have been released except withholding a sum of
Rs.5,000/- from the gratuity of the plaintiff. The stand taken by the
defendants before the trial Court with regard to the claim of the
plaintiff for release of salary from 01.09.1992 to 17.09.1992 was that
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:063246
after he was granted stay by the Hon'ble High Court in CWP No.12544
of 1992, he neither joined the parent department nor the department
where his services were transferred. The suit filed by the plaintiff was
dismissed by the trial Court by recording the following findings :-
"xx xx xx xx xx
6. Pension and leave encashment having already been
paid and it having been admitted that the pension is also
being received now continuously by the plaintiff, the matter
regarding salary from 1.9.92 to 17.9.92 remains to be seen.
It has come in the statement of the plaintiff himself that he
was relieved by his parent department on 31.8.92 for
joining in the office of defendant No. 4 and that he had
joined on 18.9.92 in the forenoon in the Irrigation
department. He had filed the writ petition in between and
had obtained the stay order and had thereafter joined in
the Irrigation department. He had been relieved for joining
in the office of the Accountant General but he obtained the
stay order and joined back in the Irrigation department on
18.9.92. It is thus, clear from his own statement that he did
not work from 1.9.92 to 17.9.92 because he neither joined
in the office of defendant No.4 nor joined back in the
original department. Even if he had filed a writ petition he
should have joined in the office of defendant No.4
immediately on being relieved from the previous
department. Since he did not join anywhere and remained
away from work for seventeen days he was rightly not paid
any salary for that period. He states that he had lateron
applied for leave for that period and he did not receive any
intimation regarding sanction or rejection of his leave.
Gopi Ram, PW1, has stated that application for leave was
received and was forwarded to the Chief Engineer and no
further intimation has been received. Unless the leave is
sanctioned, the plaintiff is not entitled to get any salary for
the said period of seventeen days because he admittedly
remained absent from duty and applied for leave lateron.
This matter would also be decided as per the result of the
writ petition filed by the plaintiff and his leave would be
sanctioned rejected and salary for the said period would be
paid in case leave is sanctioned, by the department under
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:063246
which he would be held to be the employee at the relevant
time.
xx xx xx xx xx
RELIEF:
The suit is dismissed with no order as to cost."
3. Aggrieved against the abovesaid judgment and decree
dated 01.05.1997 passed by the trial Court, the plaintiff preferred an
appeal before the lower Appellate Court. The said appeal was accepted
by the lower Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated
30.04.1999 by recording the following findings :-
"xx xx xx xx xx
13. Thus, it is clear from the documents that the
benefits of the plaintiff were stopped by the Department on
one pretext or the other. He has been granted the pension
provisionally but after a delay. The gratuity was also
stopped by the defendants and even a sum of Rs.5000/- has
not been paid to the plaintiff till today. The plaintiff has
also not granted the earned leave of 17 days which he
applied as that letter is pending before the Chief Engineer
for a long period and naturally the plaintiff was having
more than 600 earned leave to his credit at the time of his
retirement. Thus the plaintiff is entitled to the full pay for
the earned leave of 17 days applied by him from 1.9.1992
to 17.9.1992. The Chief Engineer cannot withheld the
earned leave applied by the plaintiff which was due. It was
the right of the plaintiff to avail the earned leave when it is
due. It is not the case of the defendant that earned leave
was applied by the plaintiff without any cause and the
earned leave was not due. The plaintiff was entitled for the
encashment of only 240 days earned leave and thus the
remaining earned leave he could have availed during his
service tenure and the defendant cannot reject the earned
leave so applied by him without any cause. With-holding of
gratuity of Rs.5000/- is also illegal. The plaintiff is thus
entitled to the pension, gratuity leave encashment, salary of
17 days earned leave from the date of his retirement papers
were submitted by the Department to the head office and
the delay for the payment made by the Department itself.
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:063246
There was no fault of the plaintiff in submitting the papers for
his retirement and thus the plaintiff is entitled to the total
gratuity of Rs.5000/- also. The plaintiff is
further entitled to the interest @ Eighteen P.A. for
all the delayed payment of pension, gratuity earned leave 17
days from the date of due. Hence, the finding recorded by ld.
trial court for not granting the interest to the plaintiff is
hereby reversed. So, this issue is decided in favour of the
plaintiff and against the respondents.
xx xx xx xx xx
RELIEF:
15. In view of my finding on the above issues, the appeal
succeeds and the same is hereby accepted with costs. Decree-
sheet be prepared accordingly and the file be consigned to
the records. However, trial court file be returned."
4. Aggrieved against the abovesaid judgment and decree
dated 30.04.1999 passed by the lower Appellate Court, the defendants
have preferred the instant regular second appeal.
5. Learned State counsel submits that the interest granted to
the respondent/plaintiff by the lower Appellate Court @ 18% per annum
on the delayed retiral dues is on higher side and is liable to be reduced.
He further submits that since the plaintiff remained absent from service
from 01.09.1992 to 17.09.1992, therefore, he is not entitled for any
salary for the said period. Plaintiff was supposed to join duties even if
the writ petition filed by him was pending and stay granted therein.
Later on, he applied for the leave of said period but the same was not
sanctioned.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
respondent/plaintiff has supported the findings recorded by the lower
Appellate Court by submitting that since the retiral dues of the
respondent/plaintiff were delayed by the respondents, therefore, he has
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:063246
rightly been granted the interest.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record with their able assistance.
8. The instant appeal was admitted on 10.02.2000 and
operation of the impugned judgment and decree was stayed by this
Court vide order dated 28.02.2000.
9. Admittedly, the petitioner remained absent from service for
the period from 01.09.1992 to 17.09.1992 as he neither joined the
department where his services were transferred nor reported to his
parent department. Since the petitioner had not worked from 01.09.1992
to 17.09.1992, therefore, he is not entitled for the salary for the said
period.
10. Further, all the retiral dues of the respondent/plaintiff have
already been released but after a considerable delay, however, in wake
of the facts narrated above, the respondent/plaintiff is held entitled for
interest @ 8% per annum, instead of 18%, from the date of accrual till
the date of payment. Consequently, the judgment and decree dated
30.04.1999 passed by the lower Appellate Court is modified to that
extent.
11. The present appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
12. Pending application, if any, shall stands disposed of
accordingly
07.05.2024 (NAMIT KUMAR)
kothiyal JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
5 of 5
