K L KOHLI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three connected appeals, i.e. RSA No. 2593 of 2003 (K.L.Kohli Vs. State of Punjab and another), RSA No. 2599 of 2003 (K.L.Kohli Vs. State of Punjab) and RSA No. 2600 of 2003 (K.L.Kohli Vs. State of Punjab and others) filed by the same appellant -plaintiff, arising out of three separate suits for declaration, are proposed to be decided together. However, for the facility of reference, facts are being culled out from RSA No. 2593 of 2003.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that plaintiff -appellant joined the service of the respondent -State on 25.10.1962, on Class -I post of Superintendent, Development and Testing Centre. Post of the appellant was re -designated as Senior Technical Officer, Class -I. Appellant was granted selection grade w.e.f. 18.10.1989. Appellant challenged this order and the learned civil court stayed the operation of the order vide ad interim injunction dated 9.11.1989. The stay order, however, was vacated on 16.10.1990. Had the appellant not been prematurely retired on 18.10.1989, he would have superannuated from service on 30.6.1994. Since the respondent -department did not pay all the retiral benefits to the appellant immediately after vacation of the stay order on 16.10.1990, he filed the present suit for declaration claiming the following reliefs:

(3.) HAVING been put to notice, defendants appeared and filed their written statement taking more than one preliminary objections that the suit was defective for want of notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure ('CPC' for short), plaintiff had no cause of action, suit was not maintainable in the present form, suit was time barred and it was also barred under Section 10 as well as under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC. On merits, it was stated that plaintiff initially did not apply for the benefit of General Provident Fund ('GPF' for short) on prescribed proforma. Finally, he applied for payment of GPF on 1.2.1994 and the same was sanctioned on 1.7.1994. Accordingly, plaintiff was paid amount of GPF on 2.8.1994 alongwith interest for a period of six months on the delayed payment of his GPF, in accordance with government instructions. Regarding payment of admissible amount of Group Insurance Scheme ('GIS' for short), it was offered to the appellant, but he refused to accept the same. It was further stated that plaintiff was prematurely retired because of his unsatisfactory record. Other benefits claimed by the appellant were declined because of his absence from duty at the relevant point of time. Departmental enquiries were pending against the appellant. Denying all other averments of the plaint, dismissal of the suit was prayed for.