RSA-1965-201 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA State of Punjab and ors. Nirmal Singh CORAM: HON'BLE MR Present: Mr. Ravneet Singh Joshi, DAG, Punjab Mr. for the **** SUDEEPTI SHARMA J. 1. The present regular second appeal is preferred against judgment and de (Senior Division recovery of Rs. 1,71,060/ delayed payment of Death decreed in his favour appeal filed by the appe was dismissed FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE 2. Brief facts of the case as per civil suit are that selected as Revenue Patwari Gowara, Tehsil Malerkotla. He was promoted as Kanugo on joined duty at Tapa as Kanugo. respondent was promoted as Naib Tehsildar 18 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-1965 Date of Reserve Date of Pronouncement State of Punjab and ors. vs. HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Mr. Ravneet Singh Joshi, DAG, Punjab Mr. Ankush Singla, Advocate for the respondent. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA J. The present regular second appeal is preferred judgment and decree dated 21.03.201 ivision), Barnala whereby the civil suit filed by the recovery of Rs. 1,71,060/- along with interest @ 12% per annum on account of payment of Death-cum-Gratuity, Leave Encashment, GPF and GIS decreed in his favour and judgment and decree by the appellant against the judgment and de by learned Additional District Judge FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE Brief facts of the case as per civil suit are that selected as Revenue Patwari on 17.05.1978 Gowara, Tehsil Malerkotla. He was promoted as Kanugo on joined duty at Tapa as Kanugo. Thereafter, vide order dated 21.01.2011 respondent was promoted as Naib Tehsildar IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1965-2018 (O&M) Reserve:- 25.08.2025 Pronouncement:-02.09.2025 ......Appellants vs. …..Respondent SUDEEPTI SHARMA Mr. Ravneet Singh Joshi, DAG, Punjab. The present regular second appeal is preferred by State of Punj 2016 passed by learned Civil Judge whereby the civil suit filed by the respondent for along with interest @ 12% per annum on account of Gratuity, Leave Encashment, GPF and GIS, decree dated 23.01.2018 whereby the judgment and decree dated 21.03.201 udge, Barnala. Brief facts of the case as per civil suit are that the respondent was 17.05.1978 and joined his duties at Village Gowara, Tehsil Malerkotla. He was promoted as Kanugo on 21.01.1994 Thereafter, vide order dated 21.01.2011, the respondent was promoted as Naib Tehsildar in the Revenue Department and 1 …..Respondent unjab udge respondent for along with interest @ 12% per annum on account of , was whereby the 2016 respondent was Village and , the in the Revenue Department and GAURAV ARORA 2025.09.04 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1965-201 retired on 31.03.201 respondent was tobe granted Death GIS in the first week of April, 2012 by the appellants. Death was sanctioned on appellant. However, the said amount was paid on 28.06.2012 to the respondent after a delay of about 03 months. respondent on delay of about 10 months in making the payment of GPF and GIS which was paid on 04.04.2013 and requested for release of payments were not answered to and there was delay in payment of retiral benefits. respondent filed civil suit claiming interest @ 12% per annum on the delay payments, which was decreed in his favour, vide judgment and decree dated 21.03.2016 passed by learne appellant filed appeal against the same, which was dismissed vide decree dated 21.03. Hence, the present SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED 3. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the interest granted to the respondent is on the higher side. He prays that no interest should have been granted to the respondent since there is a delay on the part of the respo submitting the declaration. appeal be allowed. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents argues on the lines of judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below and contends that the 18 (O&M) retired on 31.03.2012 as Naib Tehsildar agrarian Barnala respondent was tobe granted Death-cum-Gratuity, Leave Encashment, GPF and in the first week of April, 2012 by the appellants. Death was sanctioned on 06.03.2012 and in March However, the said amount was paid on 28.06.2012 to the respondent after a delay of about 03 months. The amount of leave encashment was paid to the respondent on 25.06.2012 and GPF amount was paid on 08.02.2013 delay of about 10 months in making the payment of GPF and GIS which was paid to the respondent. The respondent made various representations and requested for release of payments of retiral benefits nswered to and there was delay in payment of retiral benefits. respondent filed civil suit claiming interest @ 12% per annum on the delay payments, which was decreed in his favour, vide judgment and decree dated passed by learned Civil Judge appellant filed appeal against the same, which was dismissed vide 21.03.2016 passed by learned A Hence, the present Regular second appeal. SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the interest granted to the respondent is on the higher side. He prays that no interest should have been granted to the respondent since there is a delay on the part of the respo submitting the declaration. He, therefore, prays that the present Regular second appeal be allowed. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents argues on the lines of judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below and contends that the as Naib Tehsildar agrarian Barnala. After retirement, Gratuity, Leave Encashment, GPF and in the first week of April, 2012 by the appellants. Death-cum-Gratuity amount and in March itself, it was received by the However, the said amount was paid on 28.06.2012 to the respondent The amount of leave encashment was paid to the 25.06.2012 and GPF amount was paid on 08.02.2013. There was delay of about 10 months in making the payment of GPF and GIS which was paid The respondent made various representations of retiral benefits but the representations nswered to and there was delay in payment of retiral benefits. respondent filed civil suit claiming interest @ 12% per annum on the delay payments, which was decreed in his favour, vide judgment and decree dated ge (Senior Division), Barnala. The appellant filed appeal against the same, which was dismissed vide judgment and learned Additional District Judge, Barnala. COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the interest granted to the respondent is on the higher side. He prays that no interest should have been granted to the respondent since there is a delay on the part of the respondent in He, therefore, prays that the present Regular second Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents argues on the lines of judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below and contends that the 2 the Gratuity, Leave Encashment, GPF and Gratuity amount itself, it was received by the However, the said amount was paid on 28.06.2012 to the respondent The amount of leave encashment was paid to the There was delay of about 10 months in making the payment of GPF and GIS which was paid The respondent made various representations but the representations The respondent filed civil suit claiming interest @ 12% per annum on the delayed payments, which was decreed in his favour, vide judgment and decree dated Barnala. The judgment and Barnala. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the interest granted to the respondent is on the higher side. He prays that no interest should have been ndent in He, therefore, prays that the present Regular second Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents argues on the lines of judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below and contends that the GAURAV ARORA 2025.09.04 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1965-201 interest @ 12% percent has rightly been granted. present Regular second appeal be 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole record of this case with Analysis of the Record 6. A perusal payment of retiral benefits to the by the appellants. The dates mentioned by the respondent on which the retiral benefits were granted to him, is not disputed by the appellants. A perusal of the record further shows that the respondent gave r well but the same w has been rightly CONCLUSION 7. In view of the above, I do not find any infirmity in decree dated 21.03. as well as judgment and District Judge, second appeal is dismissed. 8. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. 9. Pending application (s) if any also stands disposed of. 02.09.2025 Gaurav Arora 18 (O&M) interest @ 12% percent has rightly been granted. present Regular second appeal be dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole record of this case with their able assistance. Analysis of the Record A perusal of the record shows that admitted payment of retiral benefits to the respondent and the same could not be explained by the appellants. The dates mentioned by the respondent on which the retiral benefits were granted to him, is not disputed by the appellants. A perusal of the record further shows that the respondent gave r well but the same was unanswered, therefore, the civil suit filed by the respondent has been rightly decreed in his favour. CONCLUSION In view of the above, I do not find any infirmity in 21.03.2016 passed by learned Civil J judgment and decree dated 23.01.2018 Barnala and the same are upheld second appeal is dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Decree sheet be prepared Pending application (s) if any also stands disposed of. (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable interest @ 12% percent has rightly been granted. He, therefore, prays that the I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole of the record shows that admittedly, there is delay in respondent and the same could not be explained by the appellants. The dates mentioned by the respondent on which the retiral benefits were granted to him, is not disputed by the appellants. A perusal of the record further shows that the respondent gave representation to the appellants as unanswered, therefore, the civil suit filed by the respondent In view of the above, I do not find any infirmity in judgment and Civil Judge (Senior Division), Barnala 23.01.2018 passed by learned Additional upheld. Accordingly, the present regular Parties are left to bear their own costs. Decree sheet be prepared Pending application (s) if any also stands disposed of. (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes : Yes 3 He, therefore, prays that the I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole there is delay in respondent and the same could not be explained by the appellants. The dates mentioned by the respondent on which the retiral benefits were granted to him, is not disputed by the appellants. A perusal of the epresentation to the appellants as unanswered, therefore, the civil suit filed by the respondent judgment and Barnala dditional the present regular Parties are left to bear their own costs. Decree sheet be prepared GAURAV ARORA 2025.09.04 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document