Punjab-Haryana High Court
Budh Ram Angrish vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 22 October, 2024
Author: Vikas Bahl
Bench: Vikas Bahl
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:138252
RSA-390-1999 [1]
202
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
RSA-390-1999
Date of decision: 22.10.2024
Budh Ram Angrish
...Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab and another
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
Present: Mrs. Monika Jalota, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. P.S. Bhandari, AAG, Punjab.
****
VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)
1. The plaintiff is in appeal against the judgment dated 22.05.1993
passed by the trial Court on the limited aspect of non-grant of compound
interest @ 18% per annum on arrears of service benefits. Challenge is also
to the judgment dated 03.08.1998 passed by the First Appellate Court vide
which the appeal of the plaintiff/present appellant has been dismissed by the
First Appellate Court and the aforesaid plea for grant of compound interest
@ 18% per annum has been rejected.
2. Brief facts of the present case are that the plaintiff/present
appellant had filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the order dated
15.01.1990 vide which the payment of arrears of pay to the plaintiff was
barred, was bad, illegal and against law. Consequential reliefs were also
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:138252
RSA-390-1999 [2]
prayed for in the said suit. The trial Court after considering the entire matter
and on the basis of the findings on the issues, decreed the suit of the
plaintiff against the defendants with costs and observed that the order dated
15.01.1990 Ex.P3 was illegal and was accordingly set aside and the plaintiff
was held entitled to all the benefits including the benefits of revision of pay,
grant of arrears, revision of pension, on the basis of letter dated 19.06.1989
Ex.P2 and also granted interest at the rate of 11% per annum thereon. It was
further directed that the defendants would pay all the monetary benefits
with retrospective effect keeping in view the Government letter dated
19.06.1989 Ex.P2 to the plaintiff/present appellant within a period of three
months from the date of passing of the judgment.
3. The plaintiff/present appellant filed an appeal against the said
judgment. No cross appeal/cross objection was filed by the State of Punjab.
The sole point raised in the appeal was that although the benefits have been
rightly given to the present appellant but the present appellant should have
been granted compound interest on the arrears at the rate of 18% per annum
and the said plea of the present appellant was rejected by the First Appellate
Court by observing that grant of interest @ 11% per annum was absolutely
in accordance with law. It was observed that under Section 34 of CPC,
interest on money decree could be allowed upto 6% per annum and in the
case of State of Punjab Vs. Shanti Devi reported as 1995(2) RSJ 193, this
Court had granted interest at the rate of 6% per annum on arrears of
pension. Even the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in O.P. Gupta
Vs. Union of India reported as AIR 1987 SC 2257, was taken into
consideration in which on the delayed payment of pension and retiral
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:138252
RSA-390-1999 [3]
benefits, interest @ 12% per annum was granted. It was observed that in
view of the above, discretion exercised by the trial Court granting interest
@ 11% per annum was neither perverse nor illegal and called for no
interference by the First Appellate Court.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to show
that discretion exercised by the trial Court and upheld by the First Appellate
Court granting interest @ 11% per annum was in any way illegal. No
question of law much less substantial question of law arises in the present
case.
5. Keeping in view the abovesaid facts and circumstances, this
Court is of the opinion that the judgments passed by the trial Court and the
First Appellate Court decreeing the suit of the plaintiff/present appellant and
granting interest @ 11% per annum are in accordance with law and same
does not suffer from any illegality or perversity and no question of law let
alone substantial question of law arises in the present appeal. Thus, the
present Regular Second Appeal being meritless, deserves to be dismissed
and is accordingly dismissed.
6. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
disposed of in view of the abovesaid order.
22.10.2024 (VIKAS BAHL)
Pawan JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether reportable:- Yes/No
3 of 3
