253 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 3202 of 2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 02.07.2026 Sita Ram son of Gaya Dass, retired Gangman .......... Appellant Versus Union of India, Northern Railways, Baroda House, New Delhi, through its General Manager and others .......... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present:- Mr. P.K.S. Phoolka, Advocate for the appellant-plaintiff. **** HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) CM No. 12961-C of 2024 Exemption application is allowed as prayed for subject to all just exceptions. MAIN APPEAL Plaintiff-Sita Ram is in appeal; first appeal filed by him was also dismissed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Bathinda (hereinafter referred to as “First Appellate Court”). For the sake of convenience, the parties are being referred to as per their status in the Civil Suit. [2] By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the judgments and decrees dated 29.11.2019 & 18.10.2024 passed by both the Courts below, whereby the dismissal of suit for declaration and mandatory injunction filed at the instance of plaintiff was affirmed. DINESH KUMAR 2026.07.07 17:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No. 3202 of 2024 (O&M) -2- [3] Briefly, the facts of suit as put forth by the plaintiff are that he was working as Gangman in Gang No. 24, Northern Railway, Bathinda and during the course of his duty on 12.09.2007 at Line No. 10, near Platform No. 8, Bathinda Junction, he sustained grievous injury and fracture in right foot while changing the panel of line; he was taken to Railway Hospital, Bathinda and remained confined to bed till 20.04.2008. It was alleged that due to grudge, respondent Nos. 4 & 5 (IOW and PWI of Northern Railway, Bathinda) wanted to have the quarter of the plaintiff vacated which was allotted to him in the year 1996. The said quarter was earlier used as Primary School No. 2 and was subsequently declared unsafe for school purposes. Upon the plaintiff’s refused to vacate the quarter, two rooms out of the three rooms were forcibly got vacated while the salary of April 2008 was deducted as penal rent for occupation of premises. Resultantly, the plaintiff claimed the release of his salary for the month of April 2008. It was also alleged that Dr. Deepak Saxena in connivance with defendant Nos. 4 & 5, declared the plaintiff fit and asked him to do heavy manual work despite the fact that the plaintiff was not in position to walk property. Therefore, the plaintiff claimed to be entitled to light duty due to pain in his foot. Further, it was pleaded that defendant Nos. 4 & 5 in connivance with one Ganga Parshad, Mate, marked the plaintiff absent on 09.09.2008 and 10.09.2008 despite the fact that he was present on duty and later, the absence was converted into leave; whereas the plaintiff never applied the leave for these two days. Thereafter, he was again marked absent from 11.10.2008 till 15.11.2008 despite being present on duty; after that he was marked present from 16.11.2008 till 20.11.2008; and thereafter DINESH KUMAR 2026.07.07 17:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No. 3202 of 2024 (O&M) -3- he was marked absent from 21.11.2008 and the process continued. Resultantly, it was claimed that since he was present on duty with other Gangman, he was required to be marked present on duty; to release his salary for the period of April 2008 and salary for the period he was marked absent alongwith interest @ 12% per annum. It was also averred that upon issuing a legal notice dated 09.08.2008 duly served to the respondents, no action was taken. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit. [4] Upon notice, the defendants appeared and filed a conjoint written statement taking certain preliminary objections and inter alia prayed for dismissal of the suit. [5] Replication was not filed. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues vide order dated 10.03.2009:- “(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration as prayed for?OPP (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mandatory injunction as prayed for?OPP (3) Whether the suit is not maintainable?OPD (4) Whether the suit is false, frivolous and is liable to be dismissed? OPD (5) Relief. ” [6] The learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bathinda (hereinafter referred to as “trial Court”), vide its judgment and decree dated 29.11.2019, dismissed the suit filed at the instance of appellant- plaintiff. [7] Aggrieved against the same, the appellant-plaintiff filed the first appeal, which also came to be dismissed vide judgment and decree dated DINESH KUMAR 2026.07.07 17:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No. 3202 of 2024 (O&M) -4- 18.10.2024 passed by the learned First Appellate Court. [8] Impugning the aforesaid judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below, learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff submits that since the plaintiff was wrongly marked absent from the duty from 11.10.2008 to 15.11.2008 and from 21.11.2008 till further period, he was entitled to receive the salary of that period. He further submits that since the appellant- plaintiff was forced to vacate the building, no penal rent could be imposed upon him. Learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff also points out that since the appellant-plaintiff stood retired from the service on attaining the age of superannuation; therefore, his claim with regard to light duty stood infructuous before the learned First Appellate Court. No other point has been raised. [9] After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and having gone through the paper-book / records, I am unable to find substance in the submissions made on behalf of the appellant-plaintiff. [10] Upon perusal of the case file, it has come on record that as per Muster Role – Exhibit PX, the plaintiff was absent from duty for the period w.e.f. 11.10.2008 to 15.11.2008 and from 21.11.2008 till further period, therefore, one month salary (salary of April 2008) was rightly deducted; besides it, while appearing as PW-1, he categorically submitted during his cross-examination that he has no documentary proof that he was present on duty for the aforesaid period. Moreover, no witness from the Department was summoned to prove the fact that he was not absent from the duty for the aforesaid period; thus the claim of the plaintiff that he was present on duty DINESH KUMAR 2026.07.07 17:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No. 3202 of 2024 (O&M) -5- from 11.10.2008 to 15.11.2008 and from 21.11.2008 till further period, was rightly declined. [11] So far as the claim of the appellant-plaintiff with regard to penal rent is concerned, the same was rightly rejected by the learned trial Court upon perusal of Exhibit D-6, which was an application moved by the plaintiff himself before the Department, admitting that he vacated the rooms in which he was residing and kept his bag/baggage in the room which was allotted to him in Primary School No. 2, Bathinda. [12] With regard to the prayer for light duty of the appellant, it is discernible that no medical evidence or expert opinion in this regard was produced or proved on record. [13] In view of the discussion made hereinabove, finding no illegality or perversity with the findings of the fact recorded by both the Courts below, there being no misreading or misinterpretation of the pleadings and the evidence available on record; the present appeal being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed. [14] Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off. July 02, 2026 ( HARKESH MANUJA ) 'dk kamra' JUDGE Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes Whether Reportable Yes DINESH KUMAR 2026.07.07 17:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document