J V V N L And Ors vs Raghuveer Singh And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 6487 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

              S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 618/2017

Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited & Ors.
                                                   ----Appellants-defendants
                                     Versus
Raghuveer Singh son of Shri Nahar singh And Ors.
                                                                ----Respondents

For Appellant(s)         :     Mr. David Mehla for
                               Mr. Sandeep Singh Shekhawat
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. Sikandar Ali for
                               Mr. Gaurav Singh Tanwar



             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

                                     Order

30/09/2022

1. Office has pointed out that the first appeal is barred by 50

days, a separate application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act

has been filed for condonation of delay.

2. With consent of both parties and considering the reasons

mentioned in the application, the application is allowed. The delay

of 50 days in filing the first appeal is condoned.

3. Appellant-JVVNL has preferred this first appeal, assailing

judgment and decree dated 2.3.2017 passed in suit No.7/2014 by

the Court of Additional District Judge No.1, Alwar whereby and

whereunder the civil suit for declaration and mandatory injunction

instituted by respondent-plaintiff has been decreed and plaintiff

has been held entitled to get the regular salary, gratuity and all

pensionary benefits up to the date treating as date of

superannuation w.e.f. 30.6.2012 and decreetal amounts have

(2 of 2) [CFA-618/2017]

been ordered to be paid with interest at the rate of 9% per annum

for the delayed period.

4. It appears that respondent-plaintiff rendered his service in

the office of appellant-JVVNL on the post of Helper. According to

appellant, his superannuation came to be due w.e.f. 31.1.2012 but

he continue in service and has retired on 30.6.2012, whereas

counsel for respondent-plaintiff submits that according to his date

of birth, his due date of retirement is 30.6.2012 and not

31.1.2012.

5. The dispute requires consideration.

6. Appeal is admitted.

7. Record of the trial Court be summoned.

8. Heard on the stay application.

9. Having considered the nature of dispute involved in the

present first appeal and nature of impugned decree, this Court

deems it just and proper that in case appellant-JVVNL pays the

salary, gratuity and other emoluments as directed by the trial

Court in the impugned judgment and decree dated 2.3.2017 to

respondent-plaintiff, the order to the effect of making payment of

interest at the rate of 9% per annum on such payable amounts

shall remain stayed.

10. It is made clear that if principal decreetal amount as

indicated in the judgment and decree dated 2.3.2017 are not paid,

the stay order shall come in operation.

11. With aforesaid observations, the stay application stands

disposed of.

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

NITIN /97

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)