Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana & Ors vs Smt.Akbari Begam Etc on 10 November, 2009
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
RSA No.3315 of 2006 (O&M) ..5..
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.3315 of 2006 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 10.11.2009
State of Haryana & Ors
....Appellants
Versus
Smt.Akbari Begam etc.
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Ms.Maloo Chahal, DAG, Haryana.
***
SABINA,J.(Oral)
Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration which was partly decreed by the Civil Judge(Jr.Divn.) Gurgaon, vide judgment and decree dated 28.05.2005. Aggrieved by the same, defendants preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Gurgaon vide judgment and decree dated 17.05.2006.
Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the lower Appellate Court in paras 2 and 3 of its judgment read as under:-
"2. In brief, plaintiff filed suit with the allegations that he was compulsorily retired on 22.11.1996 on the post of Block Level Extension Officer (Industries). As per policy laid down by the Government of Haryana, he was entitled to next higher standard scale with effect from 1.1.1994 along with consequential relief of annual increments in the higher scale. On being approached, defendants informed that matter was under consideration, however, despite repeated requests, no action was taken by the RSA No.3315 of 2006 (O&M) ..5..
defendants. For want of non-settlement of his case for next higher scale, the pension papers also could not be completed and submitted and that even the service book could not be completed for decision of grant of next higher standard scale. Thus, the plaintiff suffered loss of interest for non settlement of his claim for higher standard scale. Thus, the plaintiff suffered loss of interest for non settlement of his higher standard and consequential non releasing of pension. Even statement of deductions of GPF for the year 1996-97 was not supplied for final payment which was ultimately done on 27.1.1998 which resulted in loss of interest to the tune of Rs.18020/-. It was further submitted that plaintiff had submitted TA bills for the month of June,1993, September 1993, October 1994 and November 1994. He was also paid salary at a scale of Rs.2720/- instead of Rs.2780/- for the period from 1.6.1993 to 31.12.2003 as he had put in twenty years service on 1l.1.1994. Thus, his pay was entitled to be raised from Rs.2780/- to Rs.2825/- with next increment of Rs.75/- from 1.2.1994. Plaintiff not getting any relief despite issuance of notice under section 80 CPC, came up with this suit.
3. On notice being issued, defendants contested the suit by filing written statement raising preliminary objections that in view of Note Below Rule 5.32 A(c) of Punjab Civil Services Rules Vol.II read with Rule 3.26(d) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol.I, Part I as applicable to the State of Haryana, the plaintiff was retired on attaining age of 55 years upon payment of three months salary in lieu of notice, keeping in view his poor service record. Thus, plaintiff was not entitled to higher standard of pay. Plaintiff was submitted to have put up his pension papers only on RSA No.3315 of 2006 (O&M) ..5..
17.10.1997 after a lapse of eleven months of his retirement, thus, the delay in finalisation of pensionary benefits was directly attributable to plaintiff and consequently, plaintiff was not entitled to interest. Plea of estoppel was also raised. On merits, submitting that Government employees were entitled to next higher grade with effect from 1.1.1994 subject to satisfactory service record. Plaintiff applied for grant of higher standard of pay scale and the matter being referred to Head office, since the plaintiff had already been charge sheeted for major penalty under Rule 7 and having been punished with stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect, which were confirmed by the Appellate Authority. Besides there being remarks of doubtful integrity, plaintiff was retired prematurely on the recommendations of the Officers Committee. Thus, the service of plaintiff being not found satisfactory, was not found entitled to next higher standard which was communicated to the plaintiff vide letter dated 1.10.1997. It was further submitted that pendency of consideration of grant of next higher standard was not a ground for the plaintiff not to have submitted his pension papers on the existing emoluments. Thus, plaintiff having delayed the submission of pension papers, was not entitled to any interest on delay of finalisation of pension. It has been denied that the service book was not completed which resulted into delay in submission of pension papers. It has further been submitted that the plaintiff submitted pension papers on 17.10.1997 which were forwarded to the Directorate on 12.12.1997 and to Accountant General, Haryana on 24.12.1997 and the payment of gratuity was released on 12.3.1998. The minor delay was ignorable due to procedural requirements, GPF RSA No.3315 of 2006 (O&M) ..5..
statement was stated to have been supplied on 8.12.1997. It was submitted that TA bills could not be cleared on account of insufficient allotment of funds which later on stood cleared and disbursed from other Head of accounts. However, since TA bills were time barred, plaintiff was asked to submit an affidavit which he did not submit. Moreover, journey performed was not found justified and on being enquired into plaintiff failed to submit proper justification. Reminders issued to plaintiff were not responded. Denying other allegations, dismissal of suit was prayed.
On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial court:
1. Whether plaintiff is entitled for next higher standard scales w.e.f. 1.1.1994 along with consequential relief as alleged in the plaint?OPP.
2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to the amount of rs.18020/- towards interest of GPF amount as alleged in para no.6 of the plaint?OPP.
3. Whether plaintiff is entitled to relief of TA as mentioned in para no.7 of the plaint? OPP
4. Whether plaintiff is entitled to pensionary benefits detailed in para no.5 of plaint along with interest?OPP
5. Whether suit is not maintainable?OPD.
6. Whether plaintiff is estopped from filing the suit by his own act and conduct?OPD.
7. Relief."
After hearing the learned State counsel, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal.
The courts below had partly decreed the suit of plaintiff for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to commute the pension of the plaintiff(since deceased). Plaintiff did not file an appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial court. State filed an appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial court whereby, the suit of the plaintiff RSA No.3315 of 2006 (O&M) ..5..
Zakir Ali(now deceased) was decreed. The learned District Judge in the judgment has observed that it was not disputed that the plaintiff did apply for commutation of pension but however the same was not done by the defendants. Even otherwise the employer was required to get the pension papers completed from the employee within the stipulated period. Defendants-State had failed to bring on record that any steps were taken by them to get the pension papers of the plaintiff completed within the permissible time. The ground taken by the State for denial of commutation of pension was that the plaintiff had not submitted the pension papers within time. In these circumstances, the courts below had rightly directed the defendants-appellants to commute the pension of the plaintiff and to make the payment.
No substantial question of law arises in this case. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.
10th Nov.2009 (SABINA) Seema-II Judge