Delhi District Court
Ramchander Dalal vs H P G C L And Anr on 23 May, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SUMIT DALAL,
JOINT REGISTRAR (JUDICIAL),
HIGH COURT OF DELHI, NEW DELHI
RCA CIVIL DJ ADJ 1202/2024
CNR NUMBER: DLSW010117112024
1. RAMCHANDER DALAL,
S/O SH. MANGE RAM,
R/O 149/3, VILLAGE BAMNOLI,
DWARKA, NEW DELHI - 110077 .....APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. H.P.G.C.L
THROUGH CONTROLLER OF ACCOUNTS,
PENSION SECTION, URJA BHAWAN,
C-7, SECTOR 6, PANCHKULA,
HARYANA - 134101
2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
HARYANA POWER GENERATION CORPORATION,
URJA BHAWAN, C-7, SECTOR 6,
PANCHKULA, HARYANA - 134101.
3. THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER,
STATE BANK OF INDIA,
CENTRAL PENSION PROCESSING CENTRE,
CHANDNI CHOWK,
DELHI - 110006 .....RESPONDENTS
Signature Not Verified
Ramchander Dalal Vs. HPGCL & Anr.
Signed By:SUMIT RCA Civil DJ ADJ 1202/2024
DALAL
Signing Date:25.05.2026 Page No. 1/66
10:35:18
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 03.12.2024
DATE OF FINAL ARGUMENTS : 04.02.2026
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 23.05.2026
JUDGMENT
The arguments in the present case were heard by the undersigned while the undersigned was posted as District Judge - 04, South West District, Dwarka. Vide transfer order no. 08/D-3/Gaz.IA/DHC/2026 dated 06.02.2026, the undersigned was transferred as Joint Registrar (Judicial) in the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and is presently presiding over JR Court No. 7. Vide the Note 2 appended to the said order, the undersigned has duly notified the present case to the Ld. Principal District & Sessions Judge, South West District, Dwarka
1. By this judgment, I shall decide the present first appeal preferred by the appellant/plaintiff under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and decree dated 21.10.2024 passed by the Ld. Civil Judge-01, South West District, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi in CS SCJ No. 1354/2022 titled Ram Chander Dalal v. The Assistant General Manager, SBI & Ors., whereby the suit of the appellant for mandatory injunction/payment of pensionary and retiral dues was partly decreed only to the extent of ₹410/- towards electricity allowance along with interest @ 8% per annum from November, 2014 till realization, with costs, while the remaining claims of the appellant for interest on alleged delayed payment of leave encashment, GPF, gratuity/DCRG and refunded amount of Signature Not Verified Ramchander Dalal Vs. HPGCL & Anr.
Signed By:SUMIT RCA Civil DJ ADJ 1202/2024
DALAL
Signing Date:25.05.2026 Page No. 2/66
10:35:18
₹2,17,339/- were declined. The appellant seeks modification/enhancement of the impugned judgment and decree primarily on the ground that the Ld. Trial Court failed to properly appreciate the material evidence and erred in denying interest on delayed release/refund of his retiral dues.
APPELLANT'S CASE BEFORE THE LD. TRIAL COURT
2. The appellant/plaintiff instituted the suit before the Ld. Trial Court seeking mandatory injunction and consequential directions in respect of his pensionary and retiral dues. The case of the appellant was that he had retired from Haryana Power Generation Corporation Limited, Panipat Station, on 30.11.2014 and was a pensioner under Pension Payment Order No. 2048 dated 20.01.2015. According to him, he was entitled to regular pension and timely release of all retiral benefits from the date of his retirement.
3. The appellant pleaded that at the time of submission of his pension papers, he had furnished the particulars of his bank account maintained with State Bank of India, Najafgarh Branch, and had requested that his pension be credited in the said account. However, despite furnishing the necessary account details, his pension was initially continued in the earlier salary account maintained at State Bank of Patiala, Panipat Branch. The appellant alleged that due to the inaction and improper handling of the matter by the concerned authorities of HPGCL and the pension processing authorities, his pension was not transferred to the SBI Najafgarh account in time, which caused him avoidable hardship after retirement.
Signature Not VerifiedRamchander Dalal Vs. HPGCL & Anr.
Signed By:SUMIT RCA Civil DJ ADJ 1202/2024
DALAL
Signing Date:25.05.2026 Page No. 3/66
10:35:18
4. It was further the case of the appellant that he made repeated
requests and representations to the concerned authorities for transfer of pension to his SBI Najafgarh account. According to him, when he personally approached the Panipat office of the respondents in April, 2018, certain documents were prepared and forwarded for further action, and thereafter arrears of pension up to September, 2018 were released/transferred. However, the appellant alleged that despite such steps, the respondents failed to take proper and timely action, resulting in further stoppage/delay in release of pension and pensionary dues.
5. By way of amendment of plaint, the appellant also incorporated specific monetary claims towards alleged delayed payment of retiral dues. He pleaded that the DCRG/gratuity amount sanctioned in his favour was ₹7,62,476/-, but only ₹5,45,137/- was paid to him on 04.02.2017, after deduction of ₹2,17,339/-. According to the appellant, the amount of gratuity was payable on the date of retirement itself, and therefore, the delayed payment of ₹5,45,137/- entitled him to interest. He further pleaded that the deducted amount of ₹2,17,339/- was subsequently directed to be refunded pursuant to the order dated 27.05.2022 passed by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the matter relating to military service benefits, and that he was also entitled to interest on the said refunded amount.
6. The appellant also claimed interest on alleged delayed payment of leave encashment and GPF. It was pleaded that leave encashment amounting to ₹5,63,410/- ought to have been paid on 30.11.2014, but was paid only on 09.01.2015. Similarly, the GPF amount of ₹6,05,383/- was Signature Not Verified Ramchander Dalal Vs. HPGCL & Anr.
Signed By:SUMIT RCA Civil DJ ADJ 1202/2024
DALAL
Signing Date:25.05.2026 Page No. 4/66
10:35:18
stated to have been payable on 30.11.2014, but was paid on 12.01.2015. On this basis, the appellant claimed interest on leave encashment and GPF for the alleged period of delay.
7. The appellant further pleaded that electricity allowance for the month of November, 2014, amounting to ₹410/-, had not been paid to him. He alleged that the respondents had withheld/released his dues in a delayed and unjustified manner, thereby compelling him to make repeated representations and to approach the Court for redressal.
8. On the aforesaid pleadings, the appellant sought a decree directing the respondents, particularly the HPGCL authorities, to pay his dues along with interest, and to ensure that his pensionary benefits were released/processed in accordance with law. In substance, the appellant's case before the Ld. Trial Court was that he had been deprived of timely payment of his lawful retiral benefits and was therefore entitled not only to the principal dues, wherever unpaid or refunded later, but also to interest for the period during which the amounts remained withheld.
RESPONDENTS' DEFENCE BEFORE THE LD. TRIAL COURT
9. The suit was contested by the defendants/respondents. Defendant No. 1, i.e. State Bank of India, Central Pension Processing Centre, filed its written statement to the original plaint, whereas Defendant Nos. 2 and 3, i.e. the HPGCL authorities, filed their written statement to the amended plaint.
Signature Not VerifiedRamchander Dalal Vs. HPGCL & Anr.
Signed By:SUMIT RCA Civil DJ ADJ 1202/2024
DALAL
Signing Date:25.05.2026 Page No. 5/66
10:35:18
10. The stand of Defendant No. 1/SBI was that no cause of action
was made out against it. It was pleaded that SBI, being the pension disbursing/processing agency, was required to act only on the basis of the Pension Payment Order and instructions received from the pension sanctioning authority. According to Defendant No. 1, the pension sanctioning authority in the present case was Defendant No. 2, and the original PPO and requisite service particulars were required to be sent by the said authority. It was contended that in the absence of the original PPO and requisite details from the pension sanctioning authority, Defendant No. 1 could not be held responsible for any delay or difficulty in processing the appellant's pension through the concerned SBI branch.
11. Defendant No. 1 further pleaded that the appellant himself had attributed the primary fault to Defendant Nos. 2 and 3. It was submitted that the grievance relating to non-transfer of pension to the SBI Najafgarh account was essentially against the HPGCL authorities, who were required to forward necessary documents and particulars. Defendant No. 1, therefore, denied any negligence, harassment or unlawful conduct on its part and sought dismissal of the suit qua itself.
12. Defendant Nos. 2 and 3/HPGCL authorities resisted the amended claim primarily on the ground that all pensionary and retiral benefits had been processed in accordance with applicable rules, policies and administrative instructions. They pleaded that the appellant had retired on 30.11.2014 and that the retiral benefits were released within the period permissible under the Government of Haryana Office Memorandum dated Signature Not Verified Ramchander Dalal Vs. HPGCL & Anr.
Signed By:SUMIT RCA Civil DJ ADJ 1202/2024
DALAL
Signing Date:25.05.2026 Page No. 6/66
10:35:18
20.02.2002. Reliance was placed on the said memorandum to contend that three months from the date of retirement was to be treated as a reasonable period for processing and payment of retiral benefits, and if payment was made within such period, no interest was payable.
13. As regards leave encashment, Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 pleaded that the same was sanctioned vide office order dated 24.12.2014 and paid on 09.01.2015. It was therefore contended that the payment was made promptly and well within the permissible period, and no interest was payable.
14. With respect to GPF, it was pleaded that the GPF amount was paid on 12.01.2015, which was also within the reasonable/procedural period contemplated by the applicable Government instructions. The respondents therefore denied the appellant's claim for interest on GPF.
15. As regards gratuity/DCRG, Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 pleaded that 100% provisional pension was sanctioned at the time of the appellant's retirement due to pendency of a show-cause notice. It was further pleaded that DCRG was sanctioned subsequently vide order dated 15.12.2016 after receipt of the competent authority's order and in the context of the proceedings relating to military service benefits before the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court. The respondents stated that ₹5,45,137/- was paid to the appellant after deducting ₹1,72,522/- towards recovery of pay consequent upon withdrawal/refixation of military service benefits and ₹44,817/- towards recovery of excess pension.
Signature Not VerifiedRamchander Dalal Vs. HPGCL & Anr.
Signed By:SUMIT RCA Civil DJ ADJ 1202/2024
DALAL
Signing Date:25.05.2026 Page No. 7/66
10:35:18
16. Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 further pleaded that the amount of
₹2,17,339/-, which had been deducted from the appellant's dues, was refunded pursuant to the order dated 27.05.2022 passed by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in Baldev Raj & Ors. v. HPGCL & Ors.. According to them, the said amount was refunded vide cheque dated 27.09.2022. It was also contended that since the Hon'ble High Court had not granted interest while directing refund, the appellant was not entitled to claim interest on the said amount in the present suit.
17. In respect of electricity allowance, Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 pleaded that the allowance was paid on bi-monthly basis. According to them, the appellant had already been paid electricity allowance in October, 2014, and the next allowance would have become due in December, 2014. Since the appellant retired on 30.11.2014, before the next due date, it was contended that he was not entitled to electricity allowance for November, 2014.
18. The respondents denied the allegations of harassment, delay, arbitrary conduct or wrongful withholding of dues. Their broad defence was that the appellant's dues had either been paid within the permissible time or had been processed in accordance with the applicable rules and the outcome of the litigation concerning military service benefits. On these grounds, the respondents prayed for dismissal of the suit with costs.
ISSUES FRAMED BY THE LD. TRIAL COURT Signature Not Verified Ramchander Dalal Vs. HPGCL & Anr.
Signed By:SUMIT RCA Civil DJ ADJ 1202/2024
DALAL
Signing Date:25.05.2026 Page No. 8/66
10:35:18
19. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Ld. Trial Court
vide order dated 25.03.2023 framed the following issues for trial:
a. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of mandatory injunction thereby directing Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 to make the payment of dues of plaintiff for an amount of ₹2,63,623/- to plaintiff along with amount of arrears of pensionary dues with interest? OPP b. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form?OPD c. Relief.
APPELLANT'S EVIDENCE BEFORE THE LD. TRIAL COURT
20. In support of his case, the appellant/plaintiff examined only himself as PW-1. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit, which was exhibited as Ex. PW-1/A. In his evidence affidavit, PW-1 substantially reiterated the averments made in the plaint/amended plaint and deposed regarding his retirement, pension account particulars, alleged delay in transfer/payment of pensionary benefits, delayed release of retiral dues, deduction from gratuity/DCRG and non-payment of electricity allowance.
21. PW-1 relied upon various documents in support of his claim.
The documents included the bank passbook/account details, service book entries, orders relating to GPF withdrawal and leave encashment, representations made by him to the departmental authorities, Pension Payment Order, revised Pension Payment Order, bank account statements, earning card reports, office orders/memos relating to military service Signature Not Verified Ramchander Dalal Vs. HPGCL & Anr.
Signed By:SUMIT RCA Civil DJ ADJ 1202/2024
DALAL
Signing Date:25.05.2026 Page No. 9/66
10:35:18
benefits and retiral dues, cheque dated 27.09.2022 relating to refund of ₹2,17,339/-, bank statement showing payment of gratuity, relevant circulars/office memoranda, orders passed by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, and certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act.
22. Broadly, the appellant relied upon the following categories of documents:
a. documents relating to pension account particulars and pension transfer;
b. documents relating to service record and pension processing; c. documents relating to GPF and leave encashment; d. representations made by the appellant to departmental authorities and other authorities;
e. PPO and revised PPO;
f. bank account statements showing payments/arrears; g. documents relating to military service benefit and consequential recovery;
h. documents relating to gratuity/DCRG and deduction/refund of ₹2,17,339/-;
i. Government/departmental circulars and office memoranda concerning retiral dues and interest;
j. orders of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court concerning refund of recovered amount.
23. The appellant specifically relied upon the documents exhibited as Ex. PW-1/1 to Ex. PW-1/40, besides certain documents marked during Signature Not Verified Ramchander Dalal Vs. HPGCL & Anr.
Signed By:SUMIT RCA Civil DJ ADJ 1202/2024
DALAL
Signing Date:25.05.2026 Page No. 10/66
10:35:18
evidence and the certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, exhibited as Ex. PW-1/B.
24. In his deposition, PW-1 asserted that he had supplied his SBI Najafgarh account details for receiving pension, but the pension was not transferred to the said account in time. He deposed that due to the acts and omissions of the respondents, his pension was delayed/stopped for certain periods and he was compelled to make repeated representations.
25. PW-1 further deposed that his leave encashment and GPF amounts were not paid on the date of retirement, but were paid after delay. He also deposed that the DCRG/gratuity amount sanctioned in his favour was ₹7,62,476/-, but only ₹5,45,137/- was paid on 04.02.2017 and the amount of ₹2,17,339/- was deducted. According to him, the said deducted amount was later refunded pursuant to the order of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, but he remained entitled to interest for the period during which the said amount was withheld.
26. PW-1 also claimed that electricity allowance for the month of November, 2014 amounting to ₹410/- had not been paid to him and that he was entitled to the same along with interest.
27. During cross-examination, PW-1 denied the suggestion that he was not entitled to electricity allowance for November, 2014. He stated that although electricity allowance was paid once in two months and his last electricity allowance was paid in October, 2014, he had retired in November, Signature Not Verified Ramchander Dalal Vs. HPGCL & Anr.
Signed By:SUMIT RCA Civil DJ ADJ 1202/2024
DALAL
Signing Date:25.05.2026 Page No. 11/66
10:35:18
2014 and, therefore, non-payment of electricity allowance for November, 2014 was unjustified.
28. PW-1 also denied the suggestion that leave encashment was paid in time. He maintained that leave encashment ought to have been paid on the date of his retirement and that, since it was paid only on 09.01.2015, he was entitled to interest for the period of delay.
29. With respect to GPF, PW-1 denied the suggestion that any pending memo justified withholding or delay in GPF payment. He asserted that there was no provision under the rules by which GPF payment could be stopped on the basis of such memo.
30. PW-1 was confronted with a letter dated 20.10.2016 written by the Chief Engineer (Administration) to the Chief Accounts Officer, HPGCL, Panchkula, which was marked during his cross-examination. PW-1 stated that the respondents' interpretation of the said letter was incorrect and volunteered that the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court had realised during the proceedings that withholding of retiral benefits was wrong and directions were passed for release of retirement/residual benefits.
31. PW-1 denied the suggestion that his retirement benefits were paid without delay. He maintained that the retiral benefits which ought to have been paid on the date of his retirement were paid belatedly and without any legally sustainable reason, and therefore he was entitled to interest.
Signature Not VerifiedRamchander Dalal Vs. HPGCL & Anr.
Signed By:SUMIT RCA Civil DJ ADJ 1202/2024
DALAL
Signing Date:25.05.2026 Page No. 12/66
10:35:18
32. PW-1 further denied the suggestion that no representations were
made to the department regarding delayed payments. He stated that several representations made by him had already been placed on record.
33. PW-1 also denied the suggestion that the department officials had not harassed him. According to him, his grievance regarding delayed payments was never properly addressed by the department.
34. PW-1 further denied that his pension and retiral benefits were transferred to the pension account mentioned in his pension papers. He maintained that the account particulars had been furnished in advance and were available on record, but the pension and other payments were not properly transferred to the said account in time.
35. Thus, the appellant, as PW-1, sought to prove that the respondents had failed to release/transfer his pensionary and retiral dues in a timely manner; that deductions were wrongly made from his gratuity/DCRG; that certain amounts were refunded only after intervention of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court; and that he was entitled to interest on delayed payment/refund of his retiral dues.
RESPONDENTS' EVIDENCE BEFORE THE LD. TRIAL COURT
36. In support of their defence, the respondents examined only one witness, namely Sh. Bahadur Singh Gosain, Chief Account Officer, HPGCL/Authorised Representative, who entered the witness box as Signature Not Verified Ramchander Dalal Vs. HPGCL & Anr.
Signed By:SUMIT RCA Civil DJ ADJ 1202/2024
DALAL
Signing Date:25.05.2026 Page No. 13/66
10:35:18
DW-1. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit, which was exhibited as Ex. DW-1/A.
37. In his evidence affidavit, DW-1 deposed that the appellant/plaintiff had joined the service of Haryana Power Generation Corporation Limited as Junior Engineer and had attained superannuation on 30.11.2014. He stated that the pensionary benefits accruing to the appellant were released within the prescribed time.
38. DW-1 relied upon the Government of Haryana notification/office memorandum dated 20.02.2002 to contend that although an employee should ideally receive retiral benefits on the date of retirement, three months from the date of retirement is to be considered a reasonable period for processing such claims. He deposed that if retiral benefits are paid within the said period of three months, no interest is payable.
39. DW-1 deposed that the GPF amount was paid to the appellant on 12.01.2015, which according to him was within the time prescribed by the Government instructions. He further deposed that leave encashment was sanctioned vide office order dated 24.12.2014 and the payment was made on 09.01.2015, i.e. within 15 days of sanction. On this basis, he stated that there was no delay in payment of GPF or leave encashment.
40. With respect to DCRG/gratuity, DW-1 deposed that 100% provisional pension was sanctioned at the time of the appellant's retirement vide order dated 23.12.2014 due to pendency of show-cause notice. He further deposed that death-cum-retirement gratuity was sanctioned in favour Signature Not Verified Ramchander Dalal Vs. HPGCL & Anr.
Signed By:SUMIT RCA Civil DJ ADJ 1202/2024
DALAL
Signing Date:25.05.2026 Page No. 14/66
10:35:18
of the appellant vide order dated 15.12.2016 after receipt of order from the competent authority and in view of interim directions issued by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the matter relating to military service benefits.
41. DW-1 further deposed that an amount of ₹5,45,137/- was paid to the appellant after deduction of ₹1,72,522/- towards recovery of pay consequent upon withdrawal/refixation of military service benefits and ₹44,817/- towards recovery of excess pension. He stated that as per the order of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, the amount of ₹2,17,339/- deducted by the respondents was also refunded to the appellant through cheque No. 746229 dated 27.09.2022.
42. DW-1 further deposed that the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, while directing refund of the recovered amount, did not grant any interest. On this basis, the respondents' stand was that no interest was payable on the refunded amount of ₹2,17,339/-.
43. With respect to electricity allowance, DW-1 deposed that electricity allowance was payable to HPGCL employees on bi-monthly basis. According to him, the appellant was paid electricity allowance in October, 2014 and his next allowance was due in December, 2014. Since the appellant retired on 30.11.2014 before the next due date, DW-1 deposed that the appellant was not entitled to electricity allowance for November, 2014.
44. DW-1 relied upon documents including the office memorandum/notification dated 20.02.2002, the order dated 27.05.2022 Signature Not Verified Ramchander Dalal Vs. HPGCL & Anr.
Signed By:SUMIT RCA Civil DJ ADJ 1202/2024
DALAL
Signing Date:25.05.2026 Page No. 15/66
10:35:18
passed by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, order regarding provisional pension, order relating to DCRG, cheque relating to refund of ₹2,17,339/-, authority letter and other official records produced during his evidence.
45. During cross-examination, DW-1 stated that he was working as Divisional Accountant in the office of Defendant Nos. 2 and 3. He also stated that he did not have full knowledge of the case. He admitted that in his evidence affidavit the date of joining of the appellant was mentioned as 01.07.1989, whereas on being shown the relevant record, the date of joining was reflected as 01.07.1988. He volunteered that the discrepancy was a typographical error.
46. DW-1 initially stated that he had not brought the service book record of the appellant and that he could produce the same on the next date of hearing. He also stated that he had not brought the account statement of Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 from which cheque No. 746229 dated 27.09.2022 had been issued, and that he could produce the same on the next date.
47. In cross-examination, DW-1 stated that he did not have any acknowledgement of cheque No. 746229 dated 27.09.2022, and that he did not know by whom and to whom the said cheque was handed over. He also stated that he had not brought the account statement of the respondents' account from which the cheque was issued, though the same was later produced as part of the official record.
Signature Not VerifiedRamchander Dalal Vs. HPGCL & Anr.
Signed By:SUMIT RCA Civil DJ ADJ 1202/2024
DALAL
Signing Date:25.05.2026 Page No. 16/66
10:35:18
48. DW-1 was confronted with the document relating to the
appellant's claim of electricity allowance for November, 2014. He later produced the account statement and admitted that there was no record in the said account statement regarding payment of electricity allowance to the appellant for the month of November, 2014.
49. DW-1 was also confronted with the Pension Payment Order and revised Pension Payment Order. He admitted that Ex. PW-1/14 was the original PPO of the appellant and Ex. PW-1/15 was the revised PPO issued on 15.12.2016. He further stated that no opportunity of hearing was given to the appellant before revision of his pension amount, though he volunteered that some undertaking might have been taken from the appellant regarding revision of pension.
50. DW-1 was shown Ex. PW-1/23, whereupon he stated that there was neither any mention of any charge-sheet issued to the appellant nor any disciplinary action taken against the appellant by Defendant Nos. 2 and 3. He further stated that there was no such entry in the service book record. This part of the cross-examination was material in relation to the respondents' plea that certain benefits were delayed/withheld due to pendency of show-cause notice or service-related impediments.
51. DW-1 further stated that he did not have knowledge as to whether, after issuance of Ex. PW-1/23, any further promotion or increment benefit was given to the appellant. He also stated that he had not brought the circular regarding payment of electricity allowance to employees of HPGCL on that date, though the same was later produced.
Signature Not VerifiedRamchander Dalal Vs. HPGCL & Anr.
Signed By:SUMIT RCA Civil DJ ADJ 1202/2024
DALAL
Signing Date:25.05.2026 Page No. 17/66
10:35:18
52. DW-1 also stated that he had no knowledge that pension of the
appellant from December, 2014 to 30.09.2018 was paid through the salary account of the appellant maintained at State Bank of Patiala, Panipat. He denied the suggestion that the pension of the appellant was not paid in the account furnished by him as per Ex. PW-1/1.
53. DW-1 subsequently produced the service book of the appellant, finance section circular regarding electricity allowance, account statements of Defendant Nos. 2 and 3, and authority letter. On the basis of the service book, he admitted that the date of joining of the appellant in Haryana State Electricity Board was 01.07.1988 and not 01.07.1989 as mentioned in his affidavit.
54. DW-1 admitted that deductions of GPF share are stopped from the salary of an employee six months before retirement and that there is a provision in the GPF Rules permitting withdrawal of 90% of the GPF amount one year before retirement. However, he denied that the respondents were guilty of any illegality in respect of payment of retiral dues.
55. DW-1 also admitted that the document shown to him as Ex. DW-1/P7, Finance Section office order dated 20.07.2010, belonged to his office.
56. After examination and cross-examination of DW-1, the respondents' evidence was closed. Thus, through DW-1, the respondents sought to prove that the retiral dues were processed in accordance with the applicable Government instructions, that leave encashment and GPF were Signature Not Verified Ramchander Dalal Vs. HPGCL & Anr.
Signed By:SUMIT RCA Civil DJ ADJ 1202/2024
DALAL
Signing Date:25.05.2026 Page No. 18/66
10:35:18
paid within the permissible period, that the delay/deduction relating to gratuity was connected with the military service benefits dispute and consequential refixation/recovery, and that electricity allowance for November, 2014 was not payable as per the respondents' understanding of the bi-monthly allowance system.
JUDGMENT OF THE LD. TRIAL COURT
57. After completion of pleadings and evidence, the Ld. Trial Court heard final arguments and proceeded to decide the suit vide judgment dated 21.10.2024. The Ld. Trial Court first noticed the pleadings of the parties, the issues framed on 25.03.2023, and the evidence led by the appellant/plaintiff as PW-1 and by the respondents/defendants through DW-1.
58. The Ld. Trial Court observed that the plaintiff had sought a decree of mandatory injunction directing Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 to make payment of his dues amounting to ₹2,63,623/- along with arrears of pensionary dues and interest. The Court also noticed that the principal dispute related to the appellant's claim for interest on alleged delayed release of retiral/pensionary benefits and non-payment of electricity allowance.
59. While dealing with Issue No. 1, the Ld. Trial Court first considered the appellant's claim regarding the deducted/refunded amount of ₹2,17,339/-. The Court noticed that the said amount had been deducted by the respondents from the appellant's dues on account of withdrawal/refixation of military service benefits and alleged excess pension. The Ld. Trial Court also noticed the orders dated 01.04.2022 and Signature Not Verified Ramchander Dalal Vs. HPGCL & Anr.
Signed By:SUMIT RCA Civil DJ ADJ 1202/2024
DALAL
Signing Date:25.05.2026 Page No. 19/66
10:35:18
27.05.2022 (Ex. PW-1/39 and Ex. PW-1/40) passed by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, whereby the issue relating to recovery was decided and refund of the recovered amount was directed.
60. The Ld. Trial Court held that the controversy regarding unjustified deduction stood resolved by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court and that the respondents had refunded ₹2,17,339/- to the appellant through cheque No. 746229 dated 27.09.2022. The Court further observed that the said cheque had been exhibited by the plaintiff himself as Ex. PW-1/32 and that the plaintiff had not led any evidence to prove that the cheque was dishonoured or that the amount was not actually received by him.
61. On the question of interest on ₹2,17,339/-, the Ld. Trial Court held that since the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court had not expressly awarded interest while directing refund, the claim of interest on the said amount was not maintainable. The Ld. Trial Court further observed that even for the period after the High Court order, the order was silent regarding future interest and, therefore, the claim for interest on delayed compliance was also not maintainable.
62. Thereafter, the Ld. Trial Court considered the appellant's claim for interest on leave encashment and GPF. It noted that the appellant had claimed interest on leave encashment of ₹5,63,410/- on the ground that it was payable on 30.11.2014 but was paid on 09.01.2015. The Court further noted that the appellant claimed interest on GPF amount of ₹6,05,383/- on Signature Not Verified Ramchander Dalal Vs. HPGCL & Anr.
Signed By:SUMIT RCA Civil DJ ADJ 1202/2024
DALAL
Signing Date:25.05.2026 Page No. 20/66
10:35:18
the ground that the same was payable on 30.11.2014 but was paid on 12.01.2015.
63. The Ld. Trial Court referred to the Government of Haryana Office Memorandum dated 20.02.2002 (Ex. PW-1/35), relied upon by both sides, and observed that the said memorandum provided a reasonable period of three months from the date of retirement for processing and payment of retiral benefits. Since leave encashment and GPF were admittedly paid within three months from the date of retirement, the Ld. Trial Court held that there was no delay in the legal sense and the appellant was not entitled to interest on the said amounts.
64. The Ld. Trial Court then considered the claim regarding electricity allowance for the month of November, 2014. The respondents had contended that electricity allowance was paid on bi-monthly basis, that the appellant had been paid electricity allowance in October, 2014, and that his next allowance was due only in December, 2014, whereas he had retired on 30.11.2014. The Ld. Trial Court rejected this contention.
65. The Ld. Trial Court observed that DW-1 had admitted in cross-examination that there was no record in the account statement regarding payment of electricity allowance to the appellant for the month of November, 2014. The Court held that merely because the allowance was paid on bi-monthly basis, it could not mean that an employee would not receive the allowance which had accrued to him for the period during which he had actually rendered service. Since the appellant had retired on Signature Not Verified Ramchander Dalal Vs. HPGCL & Anr.
Signed By:SUMIT RCA Civil DJ ADJ 1202/2024
DALAL
Signing Date:25.05.2026 Page No. 21/66
10:35:18
30.11.2014, the Ld. Trial Court held that he was entitled to electricity allowance for November, 2014.
66. Accordingly, Issue No. 1 was decided partly in favour of the appellant/plaintiff. The appellant's claim for interest on leave encashment, GPF, gratuity/DCRG and refunded amount of ₹2,17,339/- was declined, whereas his claim for electricity allowance of ₹410/- was accepted.
67. With respect to Issue No. 2 regarding maintainability of the suit, the Ld. Trial Court held that no evidence had been led by the defendants to discharge the onus placed upon them. Accordingly, Issue No. 2 was decided against the defendants.
68. In the final relief, the Ld. Trial Court partly decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. The defendants were directed to pay ₹410/- to the plaintiff with interest @ 8% per annum from November, 2014 till actual realization. Costs of the suit were also awarded in favour of the plaintiff. The remaining claims of the plaintiff were declined. Decree sheet was directed to be prepared accordingly.
APPEAL
69. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 21.10.2024, the appellant/plaintiff has preferred the present first appeal seeking modification/enhancement of the decree passed by the Ld. Trial Court. The appellant does not assail the decree in so far as the suit was partly decreed for ₹410/- towards electricity allowance with interest. His principal Signature Not Verified Ramchander Dalal Vs. HPGCL & Anr.
Signed By:SUMIT RCA Civil DJ ADJ 1202/2024
DALAL
Signing Date:25.05.2026 Page No. 22/66
10:35:18
grievance is that the Ld. Trial Court declined his claim for interest on delayed payment/refund of pensionary and retiral dues.
70. The appellant has contended that the Ld. Trial Court failed to properly appreciate the facts, documents and evidence brought on record. According to the appellant, the evidence established that there was substantial delay in release of retiral dues and that the respondents had wrongfully withheld amounts which were payable to him on his retirement. It is submitted that the appellant was entitled to interest on delayed payment of leave encashment, GPF, gratuity/DCRG and the deducted/refunded amount of ₹2,17,339/-.
71. The appellant has specifically challenged the finding of the Ld. Trial Court whereby interest on leave encashment and GPF was declined by relying upon the Government of Haryana Office Memorandum dated 20.02.2002 (Ex. PW-1/35). According to the appellant, the said memorandum was not properly appreciated in its entirety. It is contended that retiral dues ought to have been paid on the date of retirement and that delay in payment of such dues entitled the appellant to interest.
72. The appellant has further contended that the Ld. Trial Court erred in declining interest on the DCRG/gratuity component. It is the case of the appellant that the gratuity amount of ₹7,62,476/- was payable on the date of retirement, but only ₹5,45,137/- was paid on 04.02.2017. The appellant has therefore claimed interest on the delayed payment of ₹5,45,137/-.
Signature Not VerifiedRamchander Dalal Vs. HPGCL & Anr.
Signed By:SUMIT RCA Civil DJ ADJ 1202/2024
DALAL
Signing Date:25.05.2026 Page No. 23/66
10:35:18
73. The appellant has also assailed the finding of the Ld. Trial
Court regarding the refunded amount of ₹2,17,339/-. According to the appellant, the said amount formed part of his gratuity/retiral dues and was wrongfully deducted by the respondents. Though the amount was subsequently refunded pursuant to the order dated 27.05.2022 (Ex. PW-1/39) passed by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, the appellant claims that he remained entitled to interest on the said amount from the date of retirement till the date of actual refund/payment. It is contended that the Ld. Trial Court wrongly treated silence of the High Court order on interest as refusal of interest.
74. The appellant has further submitted that the Ld. Trial Court did not properly appreciate the admissions made by DW-1 in cross-examination. Particular reliance has been placed upon the admission that there was no mention of any charge-sheet or disciplinary action against the appellant in the relevant record/service book. According to the appellant, in the absence of any valid disciplinary proceedings or lawful authority, the respondents could not have withheld the gratuity/DCRG amount or retained the deducted amount without payment of interest.
75. The appellant has also pleaded that due to the conduct of the respondents, he suffered harassment, mental agony, physical inconvenience and financial hardship. On this basis, the appellant has sought compensation as well as litigation expenses/costs, apart from enhancement of the decree.
76. On the aforesaid grounds, the appellant has prayed that the judgment and decree dated 21.10.2024 be modified/enhanced and that he be Signature Not Verified Ramchander Dalal Vs. HPGCL & Anr.
Signed By:SUMIT RCA Civil DJ ADJ 1202/2024
DALAL
Signing Date:25.05.2026 Page No. 24/66
10:35:18
awarded interest on the delayed payment/refund of retiral dues, along with such other reliefs as may be deemed fit.
REPLY TO THE APPEAL
77. The respondents have contested the appeal and have supported the judgment and decree dated 21.10.2024 passed by the Ld. Trial Court. It is their case that the impugned judgment is reasoned, lawful and based upon proper appreciation of the pleadings, evidence and applicable Government instructions. According to the respondents, no ground has been made out for interference in appeal.
78. At the outset, the respondents have raised objections to the maintainability of the appeal. It is contended that the memorandum of appeal has not been drafted in the proper format and does not disclose clear or specific grounds as required under Order XLI CPC. It is further pleaded that the appellant has challenged only the judgment and not the decree, and therefore the appeal is not maintainable in its present form.
79. The respondents have also objected to the array of parties in the appeal. It is submitted that although four defendants were arrayed before the Ld. Trial Court, only three respondents have been impleaded in the appeal and the sequence of parties has also been altered. According to the respondents, such defective array of parties reflects casual drafting and creates ambiguity in adjudication of the appeal.
Signature Not VerifiedRamchander Dalal Vs. HPGCL & Anr.
Signed By:SUMIT RCA Civil DJ ADJ 1202/2024
DALAL
Signing Date:25.05.2026 Page No. 25/66
10:35:18
80. The respondents have further pleaded that the appellant has
suppressed material facts from this Court. It is submitted that the amount decreed by the Ld. Trial Court, namely ₹410/- along with interest, totalling ₹746/-, has already been paid to the appellant during the pendency of the appeal. According to the respondents, this payment was made vide cheque dated 31.01.2025 and the appellant failed to disclose the said fact.
81. On merits, the respondents have submitted that the appellant's retiral dues were released in accordance with the applicable rules and Government instructions. It is contended that leave encashment was paid on 09.01.2015 and GPF was paid on 12.01.2015, both within the reasonable period of three months contemplated under the Government of Haryana Office Memorandum dated 20.02.2002 (Ex. PW-1/35). Therefore, according to the respondents, the Ld. Trial Court rightly declined interest on these two heads.
82. With respect to gratuity/DCRG, the respondents have pleaded that the same was affected by the dispute relating to military service benefits, refixation and recovery. It is submitted that the appellant was granted provisional pension at the time of retirement, and that the gratuity/DCRG was processed thereafter in accordance with the decision of the competent authority and the proceedings before the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court. The respondents have denied any wrongful or deliberate withholding of the appellant's dues.
83. As regards the amount of ₹2,17,339/-, the respondents have submitted that the same was refunded pursuant to the order dated 27.05.2022 Signature Not Verified Ramchander Dalal Vs. HPGCL & Anr.
Signed By:SUMIT RCA Civil DJ ADJ 1202/2024
DALAL
Signing Date:25.05.2026 Page No. 26/66
10:35:18
passed by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the matter relating to military service benefits. It is contended that the Hon'ble High Court directed refund of the amount but did not grant any interest. On this basis, the respondents have argued that the appellant is not entitled to claim interest on the said amount in the present civil proceedings.
84. The respondents have also supported the finding of the Ld. Trial Court that the appellant failed to establish entitlement to interest on the claims rejected by the Trial Court. According to them, the appellant has not shown any legal infirmity, perversity or misreading of evidence in the impugned judgment warranting appellate interference.
85. The respondents have further opposed the appellant's claim for compensation for harassment, mental agony, physical hardship and financial hardship. It is contended that such claim is vague, unquantified and beyond the scope of the suit. According to the respondents, the appellant cannot be permitted to introduce a new claim for compensation at the appellate stage, especially when no such specific relief was pleaded, valued, proved or adjudicated before the Ld. Trial Court.
86. The respondents have also opposed the claim for litigation expenses as an independent head of compensation. It is submitted that costs, if any, are governed by the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and cannot be claimed separately as damages in appeal.
87. The respondents have relied upon the judgments in Thakur Sukhpal Singh v. Thakur Kalyan Singh, AIR 1963 SC 146 and Nafees Signature Not Verified Ramchander Dalal Vs. HPGCL & Anr.
Signed By:SUMIT RCA Civil DJ ADJ 1202/2024
DALAL
Signing Date:25.05.2026 Page No. 27/66
10:35:18
Ahmad v. Soinuddin, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 826 to contend that it is the duty of the appellant to demonstrate specific error in the judgment under appeal, and that the appellate court is not required to search the record on behalf of the appellant to find possible grounds of interference.
88. On the aforesaid grounds, the respondents have prayed for dismissal of the appeal with costs, submitting that the judgment and decree dated 21.10.2024 do not call for any interference, modification or enhancement.
POINTS OF DETERMINATION
89. In view of the pleadings of the parties, grounds raised in the appeal, reply filed by the respondents, written submissions advanced by both sides, and the scope of first appellate jurisdiction under Section 96 CPC read with Order XLI CPC, the following points arise for determination in the present appeal.
90. Order XLI Rule 31 CPC requires the appellate judgment to state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for such decision. The requirement is to be understood in the context of the points actually arising from the appeal and that substantial compliance would depend upon the nature of the judgment delivered in each case.
91. Accordingly, the following points are framed for determination:
1. Whether the appeal is maintainable in its present form in view of the objections raised by the respondents?Signature Not Verified
Ramchander Dalal Vs. HPGCL & Anr.
Signed By:SUMIT RCA Civil DJ ADJ 1202/2024
DALAL
Signing Date:25.05.2026 Page No. 28/66
10:35:18
2. Whether the Ld. Trial Court erred in declining interest on the alleged delayed payments of leave encashment, GPF, gratuity/DCRG, and refunded amount of ₹2,17,339/-?
3. Whether the Ld. Trial Court failed to properly appreciate the oral and documentary evidence, including the admissions and documents emerging in the cross-examination of DW-1?
4. Whether the appellant is entitled to claim compensation for alleged harassment, mental agony, physical and financial hardship, and litigation expenses in the present appeal?
5. Whether the judgment and decree dated 21.10.2024 require interference, modification or enhancement; and if so, to what relief is the appellant entitled?
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS POINT OF DETERMINATION NO. 1 WHETHER THE APPEAL IS MAINTAINABLE IN ITS PRESENT FORM IN VIEW OF THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE RESPONDENTS?
Rival Submissions
92. The respondents have raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the present appeal. It is contended that the memorandum of appeal is not in the proper form contemplated under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; that it lacks proper, specific and structured grounds; that the appellant has challenged only the judgment and not the decree; that there is no proper memo of parties as four defendants were before the Ld. Trial Signature Not Verified Ramchander Dalal Vs. HPGCL & Anr.
Signed By:SUMIT RCA Civil DJ ADJ 1202/2024
DALAL
Signing Date:25.05.2026 Page No. 29/66
10:35:18
Court whereas only three respondents have been arrayed in the appeal; that the sequence of parties has also been altered; and that the appellant has suppressed the fact that the decretal amount of ₹410/- with interest, totalling ₹746/-, has already been paid during the pendency of the appeal. It is further contended that the appellant is seeking to introduce a new and enlarged claim in appeal, including compensation for harassment, which was not adjudicated by the Ld. Trial Court. Reliance has been placed on Thakur Sukhpal Singh (supra) and Nafees Ahmad (supra), to contend that the appellant is required to demonstrate specific error in the judgment under appeal and that the appellate court is not required to search the record on behalf of the appellant.
93. On the other hand, the appellant, appearing in person, has challenged the judgment dated 21.10.2024 passed by the Ld. Trial Court, whereby the suit was partly decreed. The appellant seeks enhancement/modification of the relief granted by the Ld. Trial Court and asserts that the Ld. Trial Court wrongly declined interest on delayed payment of pensionary/retiral benefits. The memorandum of appeal specifically refers to the judgment dated 21.10.2024, the partial decree passed in favour of the appellant, and the rejection of the claim of interest on delayed payments. The prayer clause also refers to setting aside/modifying the "Judgment & Decree dated 21.10.2024."
Legal Position
94. A first appeal under Section 96 CPC is a substantive statutory remedy against a decree passed by a court of original jurisdiction. Order XLI Signature Not Verified Ramchander Dalal Vs. HPGCL & Anr.
Signed By:SUMIT RCA Civil DJ ADJ 1202/2024
DALAL
Signing Date:25.05.2026 Page No. 30/66
10:35:18
CPC regulates the form, contents and procedure of such appeal. Order XLI Rule 1 requires that the memorandum of appeal should set forth, concisely and under distinct heads, the grounds of objection to the decree appealed from. Order XLI Rule 2 further restricts the appellant from urging grounds not set forth in the memorandum, except with leave of the Court.
95. However, procedural requirements are intended to advance the cause of justice and not to defeat a substantive statutory remedy on hyper-technical grounds. A defective, inartistic or imperfectly drafted memorandum of appeal is not liable to be rejected at the threshold if the substance of the challenge is discernible, the decree/judgment appealed against is identifiable, the contesting parties are before the Court, and no prejudice is shown to have been caused to the respondents.
96. The judgment relied upon by the respondents in Thakur Sukhpal Singh (supra) does not lay down that every defect in drafting renders an appeal non-maintainable. The principle laid down therein is that the appellant must point out why the judgment appealed from is erroneous and cannot merely leave the appellate court to search for errors. The said principle concerns the manner of appellate adjudication and the burden on the appellant to demonstrate error; it does not, by itself, create a rule that an appeal must be dismissed at the threshold for want of technical perfection in drafting.
97. Similarly, in Nafees Ahmad (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that substantial compliance with Order XLI Rule 31 CPC may suffice depending on the nature of the judgment, and that the appellate Signature Not Verified Ramchander Dalal Vs. HPGCL & Anr.
Signed By:SUMIT RCA Civil DJ ADJ 1202/2024
DALAL
Signing Date:25.05.2026 Page No. 31/66
10:35:18
court is not bound to undertake an unguided roving inquiry when the appellant raises no point for consideration. The said authority again emphasizes the obligation of the appellant to demonstrate error; it does not support dismissal of an appeal merely because the memorandum is not drafted with technical precision, if the appellate grievance can otherwise be understood.
98. Thus, while the appellant must show why the judgment and decree under appeal require interference, the Court must also be slow in rejecting a first appeal at the threshold where the challenge is substantially understandable, especially where the appellant appears in person and the defects complained of are curable or non-prejudicial.
Application to the Present Appeal
99. In the present case, although the memorandum of appeal is not happily drafted and lacks the precision expected from a formally drawn appeal, the substance of the grievance is sufficiently clear. The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment dated 21.10.2024, whereby the suit was partly decreed only to a limited extent and the remaining claim for interest on alleged delayed pensionary/retiral dues was declined. The memorandum of appeal expressly states that the suit was partly decreed and that the claim regarding interest on various delayed payments of pensionary benefits was denied. It further seeks enhancement of the judgment/decree. Therefore, it cannot be said that the appeal discloses no grievance or no challenge to the adjudication of the Ld. Trial Court.
Signature Not VerifiedRamchander Dalal Vs. HPGCL & Anr.
Signed By:SUMIT RCA Civil DJ ADJ 1202/2024
DALAL
Signing Date:25.05.2026 Page No. 32/66
10:35:18
100. The objection that the appellant has challenged only the
judgment and not the decree also does not deserve acceptance as a ground of non-maintainability. It is true that an appeal under Section 96 CPC lies from a decree. However, in the present appeal, the appellant has not merely sought academic examination of the reasoning contained in the judgment. He has sought enhancement/modification of the relief granted by the Ld. Trial Court and, in the prayer clause, has specifically referred to the "Judgment & Decree dated 21.10.2024." Therefore, the substance of the appeal is directed against the decree as well. Merely because some parts of the memorandum refer to the "judgment" alone, the appeal cannot be held non-maintainable when the decree under challenge is clearly identifiable and the relief sought is modification/enhancement of the decree.
101. The objection regarding the array of parties is also not sufficient to reject the appeal. The respondents contend that four defendants were impleaded before the Ld. Trial Court whereas only three respondents have been arrayed in the appeal and the sequence has also been altered. However, the principal contest in the appeal relates to the claim of interest on alleged delayed pensionary/retiral dues, which is directed substantially against HPGCL authorities. The respondents who are contesting the appeal have appeared and filed their reply as well as written submissions. No specific prejudice has been shown to have been caused by the alleged variation in the sequence of parties. Nor has it been shown that in the absence of the omitted party, the appeal cannot be effectively adjudicated on the issues raised. At best, such a defect is procedural; it does not go to the root of maintainability.
Signature Not VerifiedRamchander Dalal Vs. HPGCL & Anr.
Signed By:SUMIT RCA Civil DJ ADJ 1202/2024
DALAL
Signing Date:25.05.2026 Page No. 33/66
10:35:18
102. The contention that the decretal amount of ₹410/- with interest
has already been paid also does not render the appeal infructuous. The appellant is not merely seeking execution or recovery of the amount already decreed. He is seeking enhancement of the decree by pressing claims which were rejected by the Ld. Trial Court, including interest on alleged delayed payment of leave encashment, GPF, gratuity/DCRG and the refunded amount of ₹2,17,339/-. The payment of the limited decretal amount may be relevant for adjustment or for deciding whether any relief survives qua the electricity allowance, but it cannot defeat the appeal in respect of the rejected claims. The respondents themselves have pleaded payment of ₹746/- as the decretal amount; that fact, even if accepted, only satisfies the decree to the extent passed and does not extinguish the appellant's statutory right to seek enhancement.
103. The objection that the appellant has claimed a higher amount and has also claimed compensation for harassment requires a distinction between maintainability of the appeal and entitlement to relief. A party may not be permitted to introduce a new claim in appeal which was not pleaded, proved or adjudicated before the trial court. However, such an objection affects the scope of relief and the merits of the claim. It does not necessarily render the entire appeal non-maintainable. Whether the claim for compensation is beyond the pleadings and evidence, and whether such relief can be granted at the appellate stage, is a matter to be considered separately under Point of Determination No. 4. Similarly, the exact amount, if any, recoverable by way of enhancement is to be examined under the later points of determination.
Signature Not VerifiedRamchander Dalal Vs. HPGCL & Anr.
Signed By:SUMIT RCA Civil DJ ADJ 1202/2024
DALAL
Signing Date:25.05.2026 Page No. 34/66
10:35:18
104. The reliance placed by the respondents on Thakur Sukhpal
Singh (supra) and Nafees Ahmad (supra) is, therefore, only partly apposite. Those judgments remind the appellant of his burden to point out error in the judgment under appeal and guide the appellate court in structuring its adjudication under Order XLI CPC. They do not compel dismissal of the appeal at the threshold when the appellant has, in fact, raised identifiable grievances against the impugned judgment, particularly regarding rejection of interest and alleged non-consideration of material evidence.
105. In the present case, the appellant has challenged the rejection of interest on specific heads of retiral benefits, has referred to alleged non-appreciation of documents/admissions, and has sought enhancement of the decree. Whether these grounds are legally sustainable is a different matter. But they are sufficient to invoke the appellate jurisdiction of this Court.
Finding on Point of Determination No. 1106. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the appeal cannot be dismissed at the threshold merely on the grounds of imperfect drafting, technical defects in format, altered sequence of parties, or payment of the limited decretal amount already awarded by the Ld. Trial Court.
107. The memorandum of appeal, though inartistic and not technically precise, substantially discloses a challenge to the judgment and decree dated 21.10.2024 and seeks enhancement/modification of the decree.
Signature Not VerifiedRamchander Dalal Vs. HPGCL & Anr.
Signed By:SUMIT RCA Civil DJ ADJ 1202/2024
DALAL
Signing Date:25.05.2026 Page No. 35/66
10:35:18
The objections relating to enlarged claims, compensation, and entitlement to further monetary relief shall be considered on their own merits under the subsequent points of determination.
108. Accordingly, Point of Determination No. 1 is decided in favour of the appellant and against the respondents. The appeal is held to be maintainable in its present form, subject to the scope of relief being confined to what is legally permissible in appeal.
POINT OF DETERMINATION NO. 2 - WHETHER THE LD. TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DECLINING INTEREST ON THE ALLEGED DELAYED PAYMENTS OF LEAVE ENCASHMENT, GPF, GRATUITY/DCRG, AND REFUNDED AMOUNT OF ₹2,17,339/-?
Rival Submissions
109. The appellant has assailed the judgment of the Ld. Trial Court on the ground that although the principal retiral dues were paid to him, several components were released after substantial delay and, therefore, the appellant was entitled to interest. The appellant claims interest on four broad heads: first, leave encashment of ₹5,63,410/-, allegedly paid after delay of 39 days; secondly, GPF amount of ₹6,05,383/-, allegedly paid after delay of 42 days; thirdly, gratuity/DCRG amount of ₹7,62,476/-, out of which only ₹5,45,137/- was paid on 04.02.2017; and fourthly, interest on the deducted/refunded amount of ₹2,17,339/-, which was refunded pursuant to the order dated 27.05.2022 passed by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court. The appellant has also contended that the Ld. Trial Court failed to Signature Not Verified Ramchander Dalal Vs. HPGCL & Anr.
Signed By:SUMIT RCA Civil DJ ADJ 1202/2024
DALAL
Signing Date:25.05.2026 Page No. 36/66
10:35:18
consider the full effect of the Government of Haryana Office Memorandum dated 20.02.2002 (Ex. PW-1/35) and the admissions of DW-1 regarding absence of charge-sheet or disciplinary action against him.
110. The respondents, on the other hand, support the judgment of the Ld. Trial Court. It is submitted that leave encashment was paid on 09.01.2015 and GPF was paid on 12.01.2015, both within the permissible administrative period of three months contemplated under the Government of Haryana Office Memorandum dated 20.02.2002 (Ex. PW-1/35). It is further submitted that gratuity/DCRG was affected by the dispute regarding military service benefits, refixation and recovery, and that the amount of ₹2,17,339/- was refunded in compliance with the order dated 27.05.2022 passed by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court. The respondents contend that since the Hon'ble High Court did not award interest, the appellant cannot re-agitate the same issue before the civil court.
Scope of Consideration Under This Point
111. At this stage, this Court is concerned only with the legality of denial of interest on the above-mentioned heads. The question is not whether the appellant had grievances against the department generally, nor whether he suffered inconvenience on account of departmental delay or correspondence. Those aspects, if relevant, would fall for consideration under the subsequent points, especially Point Nos. 3 and 4.
112. For the present point, four distinct enquiries are necessary:
a. whether the principal amount was payable;Signature Not Verified
Ramchander Dalal Vs. HPGCL & Anr.
Signed By:SUMIT RCA Civil DJ ADJ 1202/2024
DALAL
Signing Date:25.05.2026 Page No. 37/66
10:35:18
b. whether the principal amount was in fact paid; c. whether there was delay in the eyes of law; d. whether such delay, if any, entitles the appellant to interest.
113. Mere fact that an amount was paid after the date of retirement does not, by itself, automatically result in a decree for interest. The appellant must establish that the amount was legally due on a particular date, that there was no lawful or justifiable impediment in its release, and that the respondents wrongfully retained the amount beyond the permissible period.
Legal Principles Governing Interest on Delayed Retiral Dues
114. The law recognizes that pensionary and retiral benefits are not bounty, and where the employer unjustifiably withholds an employee's legitimate retiral dues, the employee may be compensated by award of interest. The appellant has relied upon Saroj Devi v. State of Haryana, 2023 SCC OnLine P&H 3600, wherein the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court noticed the principles laid down in A.S. Randhawa v. State of Punjab and Ors, 1997 (3) SCT 468 and J.S. Cheema v. State of Haryana, 2014 (13) RCR (Civil) 355, and observed that where the State retains money belonging to the employee and releases the same later, interest may be awarded because the employee has been deprived of the use of his/her own money.
115. However, the said principle is not an inflexible rule that every payment made after the date of retirement must carry interest. If payment is made within the reasonable processing period prescribed by the governing instructions, or if there was a lawful impediment to release of the amount, Signature Not Verified Ramchander Dalal Vs. HPGCL & Anr.
Signed By:SUMIT RCA Civil DJ ADJ 1202/2024
DALAL
Signing Date:25.05.2026 Page No. 38/66
10:35:18
the claim for interest may not survive. The entitlement to interest must therefore be tested in the factual setting of each component.
Leave Encashment
116. The appellant claimed interest on leave encashment of ₹5,63,410/- on the ground that it ought to have been paid on 30.11.2014 but was paid on 09.01.2015. The respondents pleaded that leave encashment was sanctioned vide office order dated 24.12.2014 and paid on 09.01.2015, i.e. within 15 days of sanction and within three months of retirement. The Ld. Trial Court accepted the respondents' contention and relied upon the Government of Haryana Office Memorandum dated 20.02.2002 (Ex. PW-1/35), which provides that three months from the date of retirement may be treated as a reasonable period for processing retiral claims and that if retiral benefits are paid within such period, no interest would be payable.
117. The appellant's reliance on the general principle that retiral dues should ideally be paid on the date of retirement does not displace the specific portion of the same office memorandum which recognizes reasonable administrative processing time. Even applying the principle referred to in Saroj Devi (supra), where delay beyond a reasonable period may attract interest, the present payment was made within about 39/40 days of retirement. It was, therefore, within even the two-month period noticed in the appellant's own cited authority, and certainly within the three-month period relied upon by the respondents.
Signature Not VerifiedRamchander Dalal Vs. HPGCL & Anr.
Signed By:SUMIT RCA Civil DJ ADJ 1202/2024
DALAL
Signing Date:25.05.2026 Page No. 39/66
10:35:18
Accordingly, no legal delay is made out in respect of leave encashment. The Ld. Trial Court committed no error in declining interest on this head.
GPF
118. The appellant similarly claimed interest on the GPF amount of ₹6,05,383/- on the ground that it was payable on 30.11.2014 but was paid on 12.01.2015. The respondents pleaded that the payment was made within reasonable procedural time and within the period contemplated by the Government instructions. The Ld. Trial Court noted that, as per the pleadings of both sides, the GPF payment was made on 12.01.2015 and that the delay alleged by the appellant was 42 days. The Ld. Trial Court held that, in view of the admitted Government notification/office memorandum (Ex. PW-1/35) allowing a reasonable period of three months, the payment could not be treated as delayed in the legal sense.
119. This Court finds no infirmity in the said conclusion. The appellant has not shown any rule or binding instruction under which interest became payable on GPF merely because it was released 42 days after retirement, particularly when the same was within the reasonable processing period recognized by the Government instructions (Ex. PW-1/35). The cross-examination of DW-1 that GPF deductions stop before retirement and that 90% GPF could be withdrawn before retirement may show that advance/final processing could have been initiated earlier, but it does not, by itself, create a legal entitlement to interest when actual payment was made within a reasonable period after retirement.
Signature Not VerifiedRamchander Dalal Vs. HPGCL & Anr.
Signed By:SUMIT RCA Civil DJ ADJ 1202/2024
DALAL
Signing Date:25.05.2026 Page No. 40/66
10:35:18
120. Thus, the Ld. Trial Court rightly declined interest on GPF.
Gratuity/DCRG: Interest on ₹5,45,137/- paid on 04.02.2017
121. The appellant's claim regarding DCRG/gratuity stands on a materially different footing from his claim regarding leave encashment and GPF. Leave encashment and GPF were paid within a short period after retirement and within the processing period relied upon by the respondents. However, the admitted position with respect to DCRG/gratuity is that the appellant retired on 30.11.2014, whereas the amount of ₹5,45,137/- was paid only on 04.02.2017.
122. The respondents sought to justify the delay by contending that 100% provisional pension was sanctioned due to pendency of show-cause notice and that DCRG was sanctioned later after receipt of competent authority's order in the context of the dispute relating to military service benefits. However, such plea does not, by itself, justify complete denial of interest. Pensionary and retiral benefits are not bounty; they are earned rights of an employee. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has repeatedly recognised that delayed payment of pension/gratuity, without legally sustainable justification, attracts liability to compensate the retiree by way of interest. In State of Kerala v. M. Padmanabhan Nair, (1985) 1 SCC 429, the Hon'ble Supreme Court treated delay in payment of pension and gratuity as actionable and upheld liability to pay interest for such delay. In D.D. Tewari v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., (2014) 8 SCC 894, interest was awarded on delayed payment of pension and gratuity from the date of Signature Not Verified Ramchander Dalal Vs. HPGCL & Anr.
Signed By:SUMIT RCA Civil DJ ADJ 1202/2024
DALAL
Signing Date:25.05.2026 Page No. 41/66
10:35:18
entitlement till actual payment. Further, in State of Jharkhand v. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava, (2013) 12 SCC 210, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that pension/gratuity are not dependent upon the discretion of the Government and cannot be withheld except in accordance with law.
123. The appellant has also relied upon the Government of Haryana Office Memorandum dated 20.02.2002 (Ex. PW-1/35). Though the said memorandum recognises a reasonable processing period for normal cases, it cannot be read as conferring an unrestricted licence upon the department to withhold gratuity for years together. Even if the respondents were entitled to take a reasonable time for processing the claim, the delay in releasing the DCRG amount up to 04.02.2017 is far beyond such permissible administrative period. The respondents have not proved any statutory bar or valid adjudicatory order authorising them to withhold the appellant's gratuity for such a long period without interest.
124. The plea of pendency of show-cause notice also does not advance the respondents' case unless it is shown that there was a legally recognised proceeding which permitted withholding of gratuity and that the withholding was strictly in accordance with the applicable service rules. The record, including the cross-examination of DW-1, shows that the respondents could not establish any charge-sheet or concluded disciplinary proceedings justifying denial of interest on delayed DCRG. In such circumstances, the appellant cannot be made to suffer loss of use of his own money merely because the respondents took time in resolving internal administrative or service-benefit issues.
Signature Not VerifiedRamchander Dalal Vs. HPGCL & Anr.
Signed By:SUMIT RCA Civil DJ ADJ 1202/2024
DALAL
Signing Date:25.05.2026 Page No. 42/66
10:35:18
125. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the Ld. Trial Court
erred in declining interest on the DCRG/gratuity component of ₹5,45,137/- paid on 04.02.2017. The appellant is held entitled to simple interest on ₹5,45,137/- from 30.11.2014 till 04.02.2017. Since the appellant has claimed interest at 8.5% per annum and the respondents have not shown any more appropriate contractual/statutory rate for this component, interest at the rate of 8.5% per annum may be awarded on this amount for the said period.
Refunded Amount of ₹2,17,339/-: Interest from Date of Retirement till Date of Payment
126. The next component relates to the amount of ₹2,17,339/-, which admittedly formed part of the appellant's retiral/gratuity dues. The appellant retired on 30.11.2014. The amount of gratuity/DCRG became payable upon retirement, subject only to such deductions or withholding as could be justified strictly in accordance with law. Therefore, the relevant starting point for examining entitlement to interest is not the date of the High Court order dated 27.05.2022, but the date on which the amount became payable to the appellant as part of his retiral dues, i.e. 30.11.2014.
127. The respondents have not disputed that the amount of ₹2,17,339/- was deducted/recovered from the appellant's retiral/gratuity dues. Their defence is that the said deduction was made on account of withdrawal/refixation of military service benefits and that the amount was later refunded pursuant to the order dated 27.05.2022 (Ex. PW-1/39) passed by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in Baldev Raj & Ors. v.
Signature Not VerifiedRamchander Dalal Vs. HPGCL & Anr.
Signed By:SUMIT RCA Civil DJ ADJ 1202/2024
DALAL
Signing Date:25.05.2026 Page No. 43/66
10:35:18
HPGCL & Ors.. However, the very fact that the amount had to be refunded shows that the appellant was ultimately found entitled to restoration of the deducted amount. The Hon'ble High Court order did not create a fresh right in favour of the appellant; it merely recognised that the recovery could not be sustained and directed refund thereof. The underlying entitlement of the appellant to receive the said amount remained referable to his retiral dues.
128. The Ld. Trial Court rejected the claim for interest primarily on the ground that the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court did not expressly grant interest while directing refund. In my considered view, such reasoning is not sustainable. Silence of the Hon'ble High Court order on interest cannot be equated with express rejection of interest in the present civil proceedings. The order in the writ proceedings was concerned with the legality of recovery. The present civil suit, as amended, specifically raised a claim for interest. Issues were framed, parties led evidence, and the appellant sought adjudication of the consequence of deprivation of money which, according to him, ought to have been paid to him on retirement. Therefore, the civil court was required to independently consider whether the appellant had been deprived of the use of his money and whether such deprivation attracted interest.
129. The reasoning based on Section 34 CPC also requires correction. Section 34 CPC deals with grant of interest by a court while passing a decree for payment of money. The order dated 27.05.2022 (Ex. PW-1/39) passed by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in writ jurisdiction cannot be treated as a money decree under Section 34 CPC so as Signature Not Verified Ramchander Dalal Vs. HPGCL & Anr.
Signed By:SUMIT RCA Civil DJ ADJ 1202/2024
DALAL
Signing Date:25.05.2026 Page No. 44/66
10:35:18
to presume that absence of a direction for interest amounts to refusal of interest. In the absence of any express bar in the High Court order, the appellant's civil claim for interest could not have been rejected merely by invoking Section 34 CPC.
130. It is also material that pensionary and retiral/gratuity dues stand on a different footing from ordinary money claims. Gratuity and pensionary benefits are earned by the employee for past service. They are not ex gratia payments or bounty. If such amount is withheld or recovered and is thereafter restored, the employee has still been deprived of the use of his own money for the period during which the amount remained with the employer. Interest, in such circumstances, is not penal in nature; it is compensatory. It compensates the retiree for the loss occasioned by being kept out of money which ought to have been available to him at the time of retirement.
131. The respondents have not established any statutory provision, service rule, final adjudicatory order, or lawful authority which entitled them to retain the said amount without interest from the date of retirement till the date of refund. A departmental view regarding recovery may explain why the deduction was made, but once the deduction could not ultimately stand and refund was directed, the appellant cannot be denied compensation for the period during which he was deprived of the amount, unless the respondents show a clear legal justification for retaining it interest-free. No such justification has been established.
Signature Not VerifiedRamchander Dalal Vs. HPGCL & Anr.
Signed By:SUMIT RCA Civil DJ ADJ 1202/2024
DALAL
Signing Date:25.05.2026 Page No. 45/66
10:35:18
132. Accordingly, this Court holds that the appellant is entitled to
simple interest on ₹2,17,339/- from 30.11.2014, i.e. the date of retirement and the date on which the amount became payable as part of his retiral/gratuity dues, till 27.09.2022, i.e. the date of refund/payment. Since the appellant has claimed interest at 8.5% per annum and the same rate has been accepted for the delayed DCRG component, simple interest at the rate of 8.5% per annum is awarded on ₹2,17,339/- for the aforesaid period.
Effect of Government of Haryana Office Memorandum dated 20.02.2002 (Ex. PW-1/35)
133. The Government of Haryana Office Memorandum dated 20.02.2002 (Ex. PW-1/35) cannot be read selectively. It undoubtedly recognises that some reasonable administrative time may be required for processing retiral benefits. That principle justifies rejection of interest on leave encashment and GPF, because those payments were released within a short period after retirement.
134. However, the said memorandum cannot justify withholding of gratuity/DCRG for more than two years, nor can it justify retention of the deducted amount of ₹2,17,339/- from the date of retirement till 27.09.2022 without payment of interest. Once the delay travels far beyond the reasonable processing period, and once the respondents fail to establish a legally sustainable justification for retaining the money, the employee becomes entitled to be compensated by way of interest.
Signature Not VerifiedRamchander Dalal Vs. HPGCL & Anr.
Signed By:SUMIT RCA Civil DJ ADJ 1202/2024
DALAL
Signing Date:25.05.2026 Page No. 46/66
10:35:18
135. Thus, the Office Memorandum assists the respondents only to
the limited extent of leave encashment and GPF. It does not defeat the appellant's claim for interest on delayed DCRG/gratuity and on the refunded amount of ₹2,17,339/-.
Finding on Point of Determination No. 2136. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court records the following findings:
a. First, the Ld. Trial Court did not err in declining interest on leave encashment, as the said amount was paid on 09.01.2015 within the reasonable processing period contemplated by the applicable Government instructions.
b. Secondly, the Ld. Trial Court did not err in declining interest on GPF, as the said amount was paid on 12.01.2015, also within the reasonable processing period.
c. Thirdly, the Ld. Trial Court erred in declining interest on DCRG/gratuity amount of ₹5,45,137/- paid on 04.02.2017. The appellant is held entitled to simple interest at the rate of 8.5% per annum on ₹5,45,137/- from 30.11.2014 till 04.02.2017. d. Fourthly, the Ld. Trial Court also erred in declining interest on the refunded amount of ₹2,17,339/-. The appellant is held entitled to simple interest at the rate of 8.5% per annum on ₹2,17,339/- from 30.11.2014 till 27.09.2022.Signature Not Verified
Ramchander Dalal Vs. HPGCL & Anr.
Signed By:SUMIT RCA Civil DJ ADJ 1202/2024
DALAL
Signing Date:25.05.2026 Page No. 47/66
10:35:18
137. Accordingly, Point of Determination No. 2 is decided partly in
favour of the appellant and partly in favour of the respondents. It is decided in favour of the respondents with respect to leave encashment and GPF, and in favour of the appellant with respect to interest on DCRG/gratuity and interest on the refunded amount of ₹2,17,339/-.
POINT OF DETERMINATION NO. 3 - WHETHER THE LD. TRIAL COURT FAILED TO PROPERLY APPRECIATE THE ORAL AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, INCLUDING THE ADMISSIONS AND DOCUMENTS EMERGING IN THE CROSS-EXAMINATION OF DW-1?
Rival Submissions
138. The appellant contends that the Ld. Trial Court merely reproduced the list of documents and portions of testimony, but failed to appreciate the legal effect of material evidence. Particular emphasis is placed on Ex. PW-1/30, Ex. PW-1/31, Ex. PW-1/35, Ex. PW-1/39, Ex. PW-1/40 and the admissions of DW-1 regarding absence of any charge-sheet or disciplinary proceedings. According to the appellant, proper appreciation of these documents would have shown that DCRG/gratuity and the deducted amount of ₹2,17,339/- were payable from the date of retirement itself.
139. The respondents submit that the Trial Court considered the evidence sufficiently, and that non-discussion of every document does not vitiate the judgment.
Signature Not VerifiedRamchander Dalal Vs. HPGCL & Anr.
Signed By:SUMIT RCA Civil DJ ADJ 1202/2024
DALAL
Signing Date:25.05.2026 Page No. 48/66
10:35:18
Legal Position on Appreciation of Evidence in First Appeal
140. A first appellate court is the final court on facts and is required to independently examine the evidence and reasons recorded by the Trial Court. However, neither the Trial Court nor the Appellate Court is required to mechanically discuss every exhibit; the obligation is to consider material evidence affecting the controversy. Substantial compliance with Order XLI Rule 31 CPC is sufficient where the appellate judgment reflects consideration of the points arising for determination.
Material Evidence Relied Upon by the Appellant
141. The documents relating to pension transfer, bank statements and representations form part of the background and show the appellant's grievance regarding administrative handling of his pension matter. However, these documents by themselves do not materially affect the findings on leave encashment and GPF, which were paid within the reasonable processing period.
142. The material documents for the present purpose are Ex. PW-1/30 and Ex. PW-1/31 relating to gratuity sanction/deduction, Ex. PW-1/35 i.e. Government of Haryana Office Memorandum dated 20.02.2002, and Ex. PW-1/39 and Ex. PW-1/40 i.e. the orders of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court. These documents directly bore upon whether the appellant's DCRG/gratuity and the deducted amount of ₹2,17,339/- were part of retiral/gratuity dues payable from the date of retirement and whether Signature Not Verified Ramchander Dalal Vs. HPGCL & Anr.
Signed By:SUMIT RCA Civil DJ ADJ 1202/2024
DALAL
Signing Date:25.05.2026 Page No. 49/66
10:35:18
the respondents had any legally sustainable justification for withholding or deducting them without interest.
Appreciation of DW-1's Cross-Examination
143. DW-1 was the only witness examined by the respondents. His testimony was therefore material. He stated that he did not have full knowledge of the case. He also admitted that the date of joining mentioned in his affidavit was incorrect and that the service record showed 01.07.1988.
144. More importantly, when DW-1 was shown Ex. PW-1/23, he stated that there was no mention of any charge-sheet or disciplinary action against the appellant by Defendant Nos. 2 and 3, and that there was no such entry in the service book record. This admission was material because the respondents had sought to justify delayed release/withholding of gratuity by referring to pendency of show-cause notice or service-related impediment.
145. The Ld. Trial Court reproduced portions of DW-1's cross-examination, but did not give due effect to this admission while considering the justification for withholding gratuity/DCRG and the deducted amount of ₹2,17,339/-.
Whether the Trial Court Overlooked Material Evidence
146. The Ld. Trial Court did consider the evidence broadly. It listed the documents, reproduced the testimony of PW-1 and DW-1, and partly accepted the appellant's claim regarding electricity allowance. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Trial Court ignored the entire evidence.
Signature Not VerifiedRamchander Dalal Vs. HPGCL & Anr.
Signed By:SUMIT RCA Civil DJ ADJ 1202/2024
DALAL
Signing Date:25.05.2026 Page No. 50/66
10:35:18
147. However, the error lies in non-appreciation of material evidence
relating to DCRG/gratuity and the refunded DCRG/gratuity amount of ₹2,17,339/-. The Ld. Trial Court treated the High Court order as if it created the appellant's entitlement only from the date of that order. It did not sufficiently appreciate that the amount of ₹2,17,339/- formed part of the appellant's retiral/gratuity dues and, therefore, became payable from the date of retirement, unless validly withheld under law.
148. Similarly, the Trial Court relied upon Ex. PW-1/35 only for the limited purpose of accepting the three-month processing period in respect of leave encashment and GPF. While that approach was correct for those two heads, the same reasoning could not justify withholding of gratuity/DCRG for a prolonged period or retention of ₹2,17,339/- from the date of retirement till 27.09.2022.
149. The Trial Court also failed to correlate DW-1's admission regarding absence of charge-sheet/disciplinary proceedings with the respondents' justification for delayed payment of DCRG/gratuity and deduction of ₹2,17,339/-.
Effect of Such Non-Appreciation on the Findings
150. The non-appreciation of evidence is not material in respect of leave encashment and GPF, as both payments were made within the reasonable processing period. It is also not material in respect of electricity allowance, because the Trial Court accepted the appellant's claim on that head.
Signature Not VerifiedRamchander Dalal Vs. HPGCL & Anr.
Signed By:SUMIT RCA Civil DJ ADJ 1202/2024
DALAL
Signing Date:25.05.2026 Page No. 51/66
10:35:18
151. However, the non-appreciation is material in respect of
DCRG/gratuity and the refunded amount of ₹2,17,339/-. Had Ex. PW-1/30, Ex. PW-1/31, Ex. PW-1/35, Ex. PW-1/39, Ex. PW-1/40 and DW-1's admissions been properly appreciated, the Trial Court ought to have considered that the appellant was deprived of use of money forming part of his retiral dues from the date of retirement, subject to legally sustainable justification by the respondents. Such justification was not established.
152. This finding is consistent with the finding under Point No. 2, whereby interest has been declined on leave encashment and GPF, but allowed on DCRG/gratuity amount of ₹5,45,137/- from 30.11.2014 till 04.02.2017 and on ₹2,17,339/- from 30.11.2014 till 27.09.2022.
Finding on Point of Determination No. 3153. Accordingly, Point of Determination No. 3 is decided partly in favour of the appellant and partly in favour of the respondents.
154. It is decided in favour of the respondents to the extent that the Trial Court was not required to discuss every document, and its appreciation of evidence relating to leave encashment, GPF and electricity allowance does not call for interference.
155. However, it is decided in favour of the appellant to the extent that the Ld. Trial Court failed to properly appreciate material evidence relating to DCRG/gratuity, the deducted/refunded amount of ₹2,17,339/-, Ex. PW-1/30, Ex. PW-1/31, Ex. PW-1/35, Ex. PW-1/39, Ex. PW-1/40 and Signature Not Verified Ramchander Dalal Vs. HPGCL & Anr.
Signed By:SUMIT RCA Civil DJ ADJ 1202/2024
DALAL
Signing Date:25.05.2026 Page No. 52/66
10:35:18
DW-1's admissions regarding absence of charge-sheet/disciplinary
proceedings.
POINT OF DETERMINATION NO. 4 - WHETHER THE
APPELLANT IS ENTITLED TO CLAIM COMPENSATION FOR ALLEGED HARASSMENT, MENTAL AGONY, PHYSICAL AND FINANCIAL HARDSHIP, AND LITIGATION EXPENSES IN THE PRESENT APPEAL?
Rival Submissions
156. The appellant has claimed that apart from interest on delayed pensionary/retiral dues, he is also entitled to compensation for harassment, mental torture, physical harassment and financial hardship allegedly suffered at the hands of the respondents over several years. It is submitted that the appellant had to repeatedly pursue the respondents, make representations, and litigate for release/refund of amounts lawfully due to him. The appellant has further claimed litigation-related expenses, including counsel fee, typing, photocopying, process fee and miscellaneous expenses.
157. The respondents, on the other hand, have opposed this claim by contending that the appellant cannot be permitted to introduce a fresh or de novo claim for compensation at the appellate stage. It is argued that no separate relief of damages/compensation for harassment or mental agony was specifically pleaded, quantified, valued, tried or proved before the Ld. Trial Court. No specific issue was framed on such damages. It is further submitted that litigation expenses cannot be claimed as an independent head Signature Not Verified Ramchander Dalal Vs. HPGCL & Anr.
Signed By:SUMIT RCA Civil DJ ADJ 1202/2024
DALAL
Signing Date:25.05.2026 Page No. 53/66
10:35:18
of damages and are governed by the provisions relating to costs under the Code of Civil Procedure.
Scope of the Claim for Compensation in Appeal
158. The suit was instituted as a suit for mandatory injunction concerning pensionary/retiral dues. By way of amendment, the appellant quantified certain monetary components, essentially relating to interest on delayed payment of gratuity, refunded amount, leave encashment, GPF and electricity allowance. The issues framed by the Ld. Trial Court were also confined to entitlement to mandatory injunction/payment of dues with interest, maintainability of the suit, and relief.
159. There was no specific issue framed on damages or compensation for harassment, mental agony, physical hardship or financial harassment. Nor was there any separate trial of such claim in the manner in which a claim for damages is normally required to be tried. Therefore, the claim for independent compensation in appeal must be tested against the settled principle that parties are bound by their pleadings and that a court ordinarily cannot grant a relief founded on a case not pleaded or tried.
160. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bachhaj Nahar v. Nilima Mandal AIR 2009 SC 1103 explained that in the absence of pleadings, evidence cannot ordinarily be considered, and a party should not be permitted to travel beyond its pleadings, because the purpose of pleadings is to inform the opposite party of the case it has to meet. The Court also recognized a limited exception where the pleadings in substance cover the Signature Not Verified Ramchander Dalal Vs. HPGCL & Anr.
Signed By:SUMIT RCA Civil DJ ADJ 1202/2024
DALAL
Signing Date:25.05.2026 Page No. 54/66
10:35:18
matter, the parties understood that issue, and evidence was led on it; but the exception applies only where the court is satisfied that the parties consciously went to trial on that matter.
161. In the present case, the record does not show that a separate claim for damages for harassment/mental agony was put to trial as an independent cause of action or relief. Therefore, such claim cannot be granted merely because the appellant has raised it in the appeal.
Distinction Between Interest, Compensation/Damages and Costs
162. It is necessary to distinguish three concepts.
163. First, interest is awarded to compensate a party for deprivation of use of money which was legally due. In the present appeal, this aspect has already been dealt with under Point of Determination No. 2, where interest has been allowed on DCRG/gratuity amount of ₹5,45,137/- and on the refunded amount of ₹2,17,339/-.
164. Secondly, damages or compensation for harassment, mental agony or physical hardship constitute a separate substantive relief. Such damages require pleadings, particulars, valuation, proof, and an opportunity to the opposite party to meet the claim. The fact that a party is awarded interest on delayed payment does not automatically establish entitlement to an additional decree for mental agony or harassment.
165. Thirdly, litigation expenses/costs are governed by the provisions relating to costs. Section 35 CPC vests the Court with power to Signature Not Verified Ramchander Dalal Vs. HPGCL & Anr.
Signed By:SUMIT RCA Civil DJ ADJ 1202/2024
DALAL
Signing Date:25.05.2026 Page No. 55/66
10:35:18
determine by whom and to what extent costs are to be paid. In commercial disputes, the provision expressly refers to reasonable costs including legal fees, witness expenses and other expenses incurred in connection with proceedings, but the underlying distinction remains that such amounts are awarded as costs of proceedings, not as an independent compensatory claim for harassment.
166. Thus, the appellant's claim for interest, his claim for damages/compensation, and his claim for litigation costs cannot be treated as one composite interchangeable relief.
Whether Compensation for Harassment/Mental Agony Can Be Granted
167. The appellant may have suffered inconvenience and hardship on account of delayed settlement of some dues, and this Court has already found under Point Nos. 2 and 3 that the appellant is entitled to interest on two components and that the Ld. Trial Court failed to properly appreciate material evidence relating to DCRG/gratuity and refund of ₹2,17,339/-. However, these findings do not automatically justify a separate decree for compensation for harassment or mental agony.
168. A decree for damages cannot be granted on vague allegations. The party claiming damages must plead the material facts constituting the cause of action for damages, specify the nature of injury, quantify the claim or lay the basis for quantification, value the relief, pay appropriate court fee where required, and lead evidence. The opposite party must have a fair opportunity to meet such claim. This is particularly important because Signature Not Verified Ramchander Dalal Vs. HPGCL & Anr.
Signed By:SUMIT RCA Civil DJ ADJ 1202/2024
DALAL
Signing Date:25.05.2026 Page No. 56/66
10:35:18
damages for mental agony or harassment are not arithmetical consequences of delayed payment; they require adjudication of liability, causation, nature of injury and quantum.
169. In the present case, no specific issue was framed on whether the respondents were liable to pay damages for harassment, mental agony, physical hardship or financial harassment. The trial proceeded substantially on claims relating to payment of retiral dues and interest. The appellant cannot, therefore, be permitted to enlarge the scope of the suit in first appeal by converting the proceedings into an independent claim for damages.
170. The limited success of the appellant under Point No. 2 is adequately addressed by award of interest on the delayed DCRG/gratuity and refunded gratuity amount. Such interest compensates the appellant for deprivation of use of money. In the absence of specific pleadings, trial and proof, a further compensatory amount for harassment cannot be awarded.
Whether Litigation Expenses Can Be Awarded as Compensation
171. The appellant has also claimed counsel fee, typing, photocopying, process fee and miscellaneous expenses. Such expenses fall within the realm of costs of litigation. They cannot be awarded as a separate head of damages merely because the appellant has claimed them in appeal.
172. The Ld. Trial Court had already awarded costs while partly decreeing the suit. Whether any further costs should be awarded in appeal, or whether the costs already awarded should be maintained, modified or supplemented, is a matter to be considered at the stage of final relief. But in Signature Not Verified Ramchander Dalal Vs. HPGCL & Anr.
Signed By:SUMIT RCA Civil DJ ADJ 1202/2024
DALAL
Signing Date:25.05.2026 Page No. 57/66
10:35:18
the absence of proof of actual expenditure and in the absence of such a claim having been tried as damages before the Ld. Trial Court, the appellant cannot be granted a separate compensatory decree for counsel fee, typing, photocopying, process fee and miscellaneous expenses under this point.
173. Therefore, litigation expenses may be considered only as costs in accordance with law and not as independent compensation for harassment.
Effect of Findings Already Returned Under Point Nos. 2 and 3
174. The findings under Point Nos. 2 and 3 do assist the appellant to the limited extent that the appellant has established entitlement to interest on delayed DCRG/gratuity and on the refunded amount of ₹2,17,339/-. They also show that the Ld. Trial Court failed to properly appreciate certain material evidence relating to those components.
175. However, the said findings cannot be stretched to grant a new head of compensation. Interest has been granted because the appellant was deprived of the use of money. Compensation for harassment or mental agony is a different relief and requires an independent foundation in pleadings, issues and evidence. That foundation is absent in the present case.
176. Accordingly, rejection of the claim for independent compensation does not dilute or affect the relief already granted to the appellant under Point No. 2.
Finding on Point of Determination No. 4 Signature Not VerifiedRamchander Dalal Vs. HPGCL & Anr.
Signed By:SUMIT RCA Civil DJ ADJ 1202/2024
DALAL
Signing Date:25.05.2026 Page No. 58/66
10:35:18
177. In view of the above discussion, this Court holds that the
appellant is not entitled to a separate decree for compensation for alleged harassment, mental agony, physical hardship or financial harassment in the present appeal. Such claim was not specifically pleaded, quantified, valued, tried or proved as an independent head of damages before the Ld. Trial Court, and no issue was framed on such relief.
178. The appellant is also not entitled to claim counsel fee, typing, photocopying, process fee and miscellaneous expenses as a separate compensatory amount. Such expenses, if awardable, fall within the domain of costs and may be considered in the final relief in accordance with law.
179. Accordingly, Point of Determination No. 4 is decided against the appellant so far as independent compensation for harassment, mental agony, physical hardship and financial harassment is concerned. However, the question of costs/litigation expenses shall be considered, if necessary, while deciding the final relief under Point of Determination No. 5.
POINT OF DETERMINATION NO. 5 - WHETHER THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.10.2024 REQUIRE
INTERFERENCE, MODIFICATION OR ENHANCEMENT; AND IF SO, TO WHAT RELIEF IS THE APPELLANT ENTITLED?
Scope of Final Relief
180. This point concerns the final consequence of the findings already returned under Points of Determination Nos. 1 to 4. At this stage, the Signature Not Verified Ramchander Dalal Vs. HPGCL & Anr.
Signed By:SUMIT RCA Civil DJ ADJ 1202/2024
DALAL
Signing Date:25.05.2026 Page No. 59/66
10:35:18
Court is not required to reopen the merits of those points, but only to determine whether, in view of those findings, the judgment and decree dated 21.10.2024 passed by the Ld. Trial Court require affirmation, modification or enhancement.
181. A first appeal lies from an original decree under Section 96 CPC. The appellate court, while deciding an appeal from an original decree, has power to affirm, vary, modify or reverse the decree in accordance with law. Order XLI Rule 33 CPC empowers the appellate court to pass such decree or order as ought to have been passed or as the case may require, while Order XLI Rules 35 to 37 contemplate preparation of appellate decree and transmission of the appellate judgment/decree to the court which passed the decree appealed from.
182. In the present case, the Ld. Trial Court partly decreed the suit only to the extent of ₹410/- towards electricity allowance with interest @ 8% per annum from November 2014 till actual realization and awarded costs of the suit. The remaining claims, including interest on leave encashment, GPF, DCRG/gratuity and refunded amount of ₹2,17,339/-, were declined. The question now is whether the said decree requires modification to the extent already found under the preceding points.
Effect of Findings on Point Nos. 1 to 4
183. Under Point No. 1, the appeal has been held maintainable in its present form, subject to the scope of relief being confined to what is legally permissible in appeal.
Signature Not VerifiedRamchander Dalal Vs. HPGCL & Anr.
Signed By:SUMIT RCA Civil DJ ADJ 1202/2024
DALAL
Signing Date:25.05.2026 Page No. 60/66
10:35:18
184. Under Point No. 2, it has been held that the appellant is not
entitled to interest on leave encashment and GPF. However, the appellant has been held entitled to simple interest @ 8.5% per annum on ₹5,45,137/- from 30.11.2014 till 04.02.2017, being the DCRG/gratuity amount paid on 04.02.2017. The appellant has also been held entitled to simple interest @ 8.5% per annum on ₹2,17,339/- from 30.11.2014 till 27.09.2022, being the gratuity amount deducted/refunded later.
185. Under Point No. 3, it has been held that the Ld. Trial Court was not required to discuss every exhibit or background document. However, it failed to properly appreciate material evidence concerning DCRG/gratuity, refund of ₹2,17,339/-, Ex. PW-1/30, Ex. PW-1/31, Ex. PW-1/35, Ex. PW-1/39, Ex. PW-1/40 and DW-1's admissions regarding absence of charge-sheet/disciplinary proceedings.
186. Under Point No. 4, the claim for independent compensation for harassment, mental agony, physical hardship and financial harassment has been rejected. However, the question of costs is to be dealt with at the stage of final relief.
187. Thus, the appeal succeeds only in part. The appellant is entitled to modification/enhancement of the decree only to the extent of interest on two components, namely DCRG/gratuity amount of ₹5,45,137/- and refunded gratuity amount of ₹2,17,339/-.
Whether Judgment and Decree Require Interference Signature Not Verified Ramchander Dalal Vs. HPGCL & Anr.
Signed By:SUMIT RCA Civil DJ ADJ 1202/2024
DALAL
Signing Date:25.05.2026 Page No. 61/66
10:35:18
188. The judgment and decree dated 21.10.2024 do not call for
interference in so far as the Ld. Trial Court declined interest on leave encashment and GPF. The findings already returned under Point No. 2 show that those payments were made within the permissible/reasonable period and, therefore, the appellant is not entitled to interest on those heads.
189. The decree passed by the Ld. Trial Court in respect of electricity allowance of ₹410/- with interest @ 8% per annum from November 2014 till actual realization is also required to be maintained. The respondents have pleaded that the decretal amount of ₹746/- has already been paid during pendency of appeal. The said fact, if correct, shall operate only towards satisfaction/adjustment of the Trial Court decree regarding electricity allowance. It does not affect the appellant's entitlement to enhanced relief granted in this appeal.
190. However, the judgment and decree require modification to the extent that the Ld. Trial Court declined interest on the DCRG/gratuity amount of ₹5,45,137/- and on the refunded gratuity amount of ₹2,17,339/-. In view of the findings already returned, the appellant is entitled to interest on these two amounts. Since the principal amounts have already been paid/refunded, the appellate relief is confined only to interest on the said principal amounts for the specified periods.
191. The claim for independent compensation for harassment, mental agony, physical hardship and financial harassment has already been declined under Point No. 4 and therefore no decree is to be passed on that head.
Signature Not VerifiedRamchander Dalal Vs. HPGCL & Anr.
Signed By:SUMIT RCA Civil DJ ADJ 1202/2024
DALAL
Signing Date:25.05.2026 Page No. 62/66
10:35:18
Relief Payable to the Appellant
192. In view of the above findings, the appellant is held entitled to
the following reliefs:
a. First, the appellant is entitled to simple interest @ 8.5% per annum on the amount of ₹5,45,137/- from 30.11.2014 till 04.02.2017. This amount represents interest on the DCRG/gratuity component which was paid on 04.02.2017. The principal amount of ₹5,45,137/- having already been paid, only interest for the aforesaid period is being awarded.
b. Secondly, the appellant is entitled to simple interest @ 8.5% per annum on the amount of ₹2,17,339/- from 30.11.2014 till 27.09.2022. This amount represents interest on the deducted/refunded gratuity component. The principal amount of ₹2,17,339/- having already been refunded, only interest for the aforesaid period is being awarded. c. Thirdly, the decree of the Ld. Trial Court directing payment of ₹410/- towards electricity allowance with interest @ 8% per annum from November 2014 till actual realization is affirmed. Any amount already paid by the respondents towards this part of the decree, including the alleged payment of ₹746/-, shall be liable to be adjusted/satisfied in accordance with law.
d. Fourthly, the appellant's claim for interest on leave encashment and GPF remains rejected.
Signature Not VerifiedRamchander Dalal Vs. HPGCL & Anr.
Signed By:SUMIT RCA Civil DJ ADJ 1202/2024
DALAL
Signing Date:25.05.2026 Page No. 63/66
10:35:18
e. Fifthly, the appellant's claim for independent compensation for harassment, mental agony, physical hardship and financial harassment remains rejected.
Costs
193. The Ld. Trial Court had awarded costs of the suit in favour of the plaintiff/appellant. Since the suit was partly decreed and the present appeal has also succeeded in part, there is no reason to interfere with the award of costs of the suit made by the Ld. Trial Court.
194. As regards costs of the appeal, the appellant has succeeded substantially only on two interest components, while his claims for interest on leave encashment and GPF and his claim for independent compensation have been rejected. The respondents have also partly succeeded in resisting several claims. In these circumstances, the ends of justice would be served by directing the parties to bear their own costs in the present appeal. The appellant's separate claim for counsel fee, typing, photocopying, process fee and miscellaneous expenses as compensation has already been declined under Point No. 4, and no separate decree is being passed on that account.
OPERATIVE DIRECTIONS
195. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and decree dated 21.10.2024 passed by the Ld. Civil Judge-01, South West District, Dwarka Courts, in CS SCJ No. 1354/2022 are modified/enhanced to the following extent:
Signature Not VerifiedRamchander Dalal Vs. HPGCL & Anr.
Signed By:SUMIT RCA Civil DJ ADJ 1202/2024
DALAL
Signing Date:25.05.2026 Page No. 64/66
10:35:18
a. The respondents shall pay to the appellant simple interest @ 8.5% per annum on ₹5,45,137/- from 30.11.2014 till 04.02.2017. b. The respondents shall pay to the appellant simple interest @ 8.5% per annum on ₹2,17,339/- from 30.11.2014 till 27.09.2022. c. It is clarified that the principal amounts of ₹5,45,137/- and ₹2,17,339/- have already been paid/refunded, and only interest on the said amounts is being awarded by this appellate judgment. d. The decree of the Ld. Trial Court for ₹410/- towards electricity allowance with interest @ 8% per annum from November 2014 till actual realization is affirmed. Any payment already made by the respondents towards this component shall be adjusted against the decretal liability under this head.
e. The rejection of the appellant's claim for interest on leave encashment and GPF is affirmed.
f. The rejection of the appellant's claim for independent compensation for harassment, mental agony, physical hardship and financial harassment is affirmed.
g. The award of costs of the suit in favour of the appellant, as directed by the Ld. Trial Court, is maintained.
h. The parties shall bear their own costs in the present appeal.
196. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
197. Trial Court Record be sent back along with a copy of this judgment.
Signature Not VerifiedRamchander Dalal Vs. HPGCL & Anr.
Signed By:SUMIT RCA Civil DJ ADJ 1202/2024
DALAL
Signing Date:25.05.2026 Page No. 65/66
10:35:18
198. File be sent to the Court of Ld. District Judge - 04, South West
District, Dwarka, New Delhi for passing appropriate orders for consignment of the file to the record room, after due compliance.
PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 23.05.2026 (SUMIT DALAL) Joint Registrar (Judicial) - 071, Hon'ble Delhi High Court, 23.05.2026.
1Formerly, District Judge - 04, South West District, Dwarka Courts, at the time of reserving judgment.
Signature Not VerifiedRamchander Dalal Vs. HPGCL & Anr.
Signed By:SUMIT RCA Civil DJ ADJ 1202/2024
DALAL
Signing Date:25.05.2026 Page No. 66/66
10:35:18