Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS versus SURJIT SINGH

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


The State of Punjab & Ors v. Surjit Singh - RSA-3542-2004 [2006] RD-P&H 2232 (3 April 2006)

IN THE COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA NO.3542 of 2004

DATE OF DECISION:March 27, 2006

The State of Punjab and others

....Appellants

VERSUS

Surjit Singh

.....Respondent

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL
PRESENT: Shri Sushant Maini, DAG, Haryana.

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

The defendants State of Punjab and others are in appeal.

A suit for declaration was filed by the plaintiff claiming that he had been dismissed from service with effect from August 16,1995 but the GPF amount lying with the defendants had not released to him till February 2001. Consequently, he claimed interest on the delayed payment.

The learned trial Court noticed that there was a delay in making the payment of GPF amount by the defendants. However, it was also noticed that the plaintiff had applied for the release of GPF amount after four years. Consequently, the suit of the plaintiff was partly decreed and he was held entitled to the interest on the delayed payment of GPF amount for the period with effect from August 7,1986 till August 16,1995.

The plaintiff filed an appeal against the judgment of the learned trial Judge. He claimed that he was entitled to interest till date of payment. The learned First Appellate Court re-appraised the entire evidence and came to the conclusion that the payment of GPF fund was primarily the responsibility of the defendants and there was no requirement of the plaintiff making a request for the payment of the amount. Consequently, the appeal of the plaintiff was allowed and the plaintiff was held entitled to interest from August 7,1986 till February 2001.

Nothing has been shown that the findings of fact recorded by the learned Courts below suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to the record.

No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises in the present appeal.

Dismissed.

March 27, 2006 (Viney Mittal)

KD Judge


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.