Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

PROF.Y.L.CHOPRA versus PROF.Y.L.CHOPRA

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Prof.Y.L.Chopra v. Prof.Y.L.Chopra - RSA-230-2005 [2006] RD-P&H 540 (3 February 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Case No. : R.S.A.No.230 of 2005

Date of Decision : February 06, 2006.

Prof.Y.L.Chopra .... Appellant

Vs.

State of Punjab & others .... Respondents Coram : Hon'ble Mr.Justice Viney Mittal.

* * *

Present : Mr.H.S.Rakhra, Advocate

for the appellant.

JUDGMENT :

The plaintiff having lost before the learned first appellate court, has approached this Court through the present Regular Second Appeal.

He filed a suit for declaration that he was entitled to leave encashment of Rs.12,290/-. He also claimed that some retiral benefits have been paid late to him and therefore, he was entitled to interest on the same.

The suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed by the trial court and he was held entitled to grant of commuted leave for the periods March 05, 1999 to March 19, 1999 and April 22, 1999 to May 10, 1999 and was also held entitled to interest on certain delayed payments.

The matter was taken up in appeal by the State of Punjab.

The learned first appellate court re-appraised the evidence on record and on such re-appraisal and on consideration of the proviso attached to Rule 8.119 (c), it was held that the plaintiff was working in a vacation department, therefore, he was not entitled to earned leave and since the plaintiff had availed of the aforesaid earned leave, therefore, it was held that the claim made by the plaintiff in the suit was not legally sustainable and the refund of the payment made for leave encashment, had been rightly ordered.

However, the learned first appellate court held that the plaintiff would be R.S.A.No.230 of 2005 : 2 :

entitled to interest at the rate of 6% on the delayed payment of death-cum- gratuity and other benefits, as ordered by the trial court.

Consequently, the appeal filed by the defendants was partly allowed and the suit of the plaintiff, to that extent, was dismissed.

Nothing has been shown that the findings recorded by the learned first appellate court 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.

February 06, 2006 ( VINEY MITTAL )

monika 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.