- (1.) This is a regular second appeal filed on behalf of the State of Haryana against the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Kurukshetra dated 7.4.1998. The learned District Judge in his judgment has given declaration that the plaintiff-respondent (hereinafter to be referred as, 'plaintiff') is entitled for interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the amount of Rs. 35,851/- w.e.f. 1971 when the increments fell due and were wrongfully withheld by the defendants-appellants (hereinafter to be referred as, 'defendants'). The learned District Judge also awarded the costs of litigation to the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, the present appeal has been filed.
(2.) The plaintiff was appointed as Craft Teacher on 13.8.1968 in the school run by the Panchayat Samiti under the control of Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Shahbad. She was given regular grade somewhere in 1970. However, from 1971 to 1976 her annual grade increments were not given for the reasons best known to the defendants. The plaintiff made various representations and eventually served a legal notice on the Executive Officer of the Panchayat Samiti and her case was finalised on 10.11.1991. According to the settlement, the arrears of Rs. 35,851/- was to be paid in three instalments. The last instalment was paid to her in the year 1994. The plaintiff urged that the amount of five increments due to her was wrongly withheld without any rhyme or reason and she was entitled to interest. She filed civil suit on 23.12.1995. Her claim was decreed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kurukshetra and interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the amount of Rs. 35,851/- was awarded from the date when this amount has become due till the actual date of payment.
(3.) Dis-satisfied with the judgment and decree passed by the trial court, the defendants preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, Kurukshetra. Affirming the findings recorded by the trial court, the learned District Judge held as under :- "After going through all aspects of the case, I am of the firm opinion that no case is made out for interference in appeal, for a number of reasons. It cannot be lost sight that by accepting the claim of the plaintiff regarding the grant of five increments from 1971 to 1976, the defendants created a right in favour of the plaintiff to ask for interest on the delayed payment of these increments, which were illegally withheld by the defendants. Nothing has come on record to show or suggest that these five increments for the period 1971 to 1976 were with-held on account of some penal order or that the plaintiff was not entitled to these increments. From the facts and circumstances of this case, it becomes absolutely clear that defendants realising their mistake, which they have been committing ever since the year 1971 to 1976, in the year 1993 made the payment on the basis of affidavit and on the basis that arrears shall be paid to the plaintiff in three instalments. This consent on the part of the plaintiff is no consent in the eyes of law, because under the law the plaintiff was entitled to the grant of annual increment on the due dates which fell in the years 1971 to 1976. In view of the facts and circumstances of this case, it cannot be said that the payment of arrears amounting to Rs. 35,851/- was not lawfully due to the plaintiff. In these circumstances, while with- holding this amount for a number of years, the defendants used this amount for other purposes to the detriment of the plaintiff and now they cannot be allowed to take a plea that the plaintiff is estopped from filing the suit by her own act and conduct, under the garb of undertaking having been obtained from the plaintiff. In my opinion, the learned trial Court rightly awarded interest at the rate of 12% per annum on this amount of Rs. 35,851/- from the date when this amount had become due till actual date of payment. In these circumstances, finding no merit in any of the submissions of the learned Government Pleader as noticed in para No. 7 at page 5 of this judgment, I find no force in this appeal and dismiss the same, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.";