High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Subhash Chander Adlakha v. State of Haryana & Ors.... - RSA-3048-2004  RD-P&H 740 (14 February 2006)
Case No. : C.M.No.7386-C of 2004
R.S.A.No.3048 of 2004
Date of Decision : February 16, 2006.
Subhash Chander Adlakha .... Appellant
State of Haryana & others .... Respondents Coram : Hon'ble Mr.Justice Viney Mittal.
* * *
Present : Mr.S.P.Laler, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr.Sidharth Batra, AAG, Haryana
for the respondents.
C.M.No.7386-C of 2004 :
For the reasons stated in the application, the delay in refiling the present appeal is condoned.
R.S.A.No.3048 of 2004 :
The plaintiff has remained unsuccessful before the first appellate court and has approached this court through the present appeal.
The plaintiff filed a suit for mandatory injunction claiming that he had retired on March 31, 1998 on his own request but the gratuity amount of Rs.30,000/- and some other retiral benefits had not been released.
The defendants contested the suit. It was claimed by them that at the time when the plaintiff had been permitted to retire voluntarily, he had not handed over the charge at Gurgaon and Nagina, where the plaintiff was working earlier. When the aforesaid fact came to the notice of Principals concerned that the plaintiff had sought voluntary retirement, they informed C.M.No.7386-C of 2004 : 2 :
R.S.A.No.3048 of 2004
the Principal of Government College, Faridabad, from where he was relieved from his duty that the plaintiff was under arrears due to shortage of books of the library which were to be recovered from his gratuity and therefore, the entire amount of gratuity was withheld. It was also maintained that the Principal at Gurgaon had calculated the loss of books worth Rs.52,439.92 paise, which is to be recovered from the gratuity of the plaintiff. Similarly, there was a huge shortage of books at Government College, Nagina also. It was claimed that if the plaintiff would settle the accounts with regard to such shortage, his gratuity and all other retiral benefits would be cleared.
The suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed by the trial court.
The defendants took up the matter in appeal before the learned first appellate court. The learned first appellate court noticed the entire evidence available on record and found that the plaintiff had not handed over the charge - neither at Gurgaon nor at Nagina and therefore, till the shortage in the books under his charge is made good, the retiral benefits could not be paid to him. In these circumstances, the appeal filed by the defendants was allowed and suit of the plaintiff was dismissed.
Nothing has been shown that the findings recorded by the 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.
Before parting with this judgment, it is made clear that if the plaintiff, at any point of time, approaches the competent authority for making good the shortage attributed to him or otherwise explains the aforesaid shortage satisfactorily, then the entire retiral benefits shall be paid thereafter.
February 16, 2006 ( VINEY MITTAL )
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.