Singh Sullar, J. - (1.) HAVING lost the legal battle before the first appellate Court, the Appellant -Plaintiff Om Parkash Verma (for brevity "the Plaintiff") filed the instant appeal. After hearing the learned Counsel for the Appellant -Plaintiff, going through the record with his valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the appeal in this context. 3. As is evident from the record that the suit filed by the Plaintiff for a decree of declaration and mandatory injunction directing the Punjab Agricultural University and its officers Respondent -Defendants (for short "the Defendants") to release the amount of his retiral benefits alongwith 18% compound interest was partly decreed by the trial Court, by virtue of judgment and decree dated 31.10.2002. 4. Although the trial Court partly decreed the suit, but still aggrieved by its judgment and decree, the Plaintiff filed the appeal, which was dismissed as well by the Ist appellate Court, by way of impugned judgment and decree dated 08.2.2010, the operative part of which is (para 11) as under: From the documents which have been submitted during the pendency of the appeal, it is clear that pension has already been released to the Appellant and even gratuity has been paid to him under the rules. As far as findings on Issues No. 1,2,2 -A is concerned, Appellant has failed to prove on record that what is the illegality or irregularity in these findings. From perusal of the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court it is clear that vide order dated 27.1.94, the Hon'ble High Court observed that the conduct of the Petitioner/Plaintiff dis -entitled him to the equitable relief from that court. However, in the interest of justice the Plaintiff was directed to appear before the Chief Engineer of University on 7.2.1994 who was then to re -apprise him of the information which was to be sought from him. The Plaintiff was asked to co -operate with the concerned authorities and further was directed to render all documents as are asked from him. Thereafter, the authorities were directed to release his pensionary benefits as per rules. The learned trial Court has rightly held that Plaintiff/Appellant has failed to prove on record that he has complied with the directions issued by the Hon'ble High Court. Although the Plaintiff has placed on record various documents but it is admitted fact that Plaintiff has failed to appear before the Chief Engineer on 7.2.1994 as he was so directed by the Hon'ble High Court. It is proved on the file that as per rules and regulations of the P.A.U. every employee retiring from the department has to furnish his No Dues Certificate but despite that no such certificate was furnished by the Plaintiff/Appellant. It is not made clear by the Appellant that why he has not appeared before the Chief Engineer on 7.2.94. In his reply he has submitted that he could not appear before the Chief Engineer as order of the Hon'ble High Court was not clear to him. This contention is devoid of any merits. Appellant/Plaintiff is an educated person and it does not lie in his mouth to allege that he could not come to know about the precise order and date passed by the Hon'ble High Court. Rather it is a clear cut non compliance of the orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court by the Appellant/Plaintiff for the reasons best known to him. Despite that the then Chief Engineer vide his letter Ex.P33 asked the Plaintiff to meet Executive Engineer of the respective divisions in order to settle and render accounts after interacting with them. Despite that Plaintiff has failed to comply with the orders passed by the Chief Engineer. The senior authorities of the P.A.U. has shown their dis -satisfaction over the explanation furnished by the Plaintiff. Rather the Plaintiff/Appellant was alleging that there was no need to submit any No Dues Certificate for the purpose of releasing retiral benefits. This contention is devoid of any merits. The Hon'ble High Court has made it clear that Plaintiff should appear before the Chief Engineer on 7.2.1994 and to render all accounts to them as required by them. Despite that he had not complied with the same. When the Plaintiff had himself not appeared before the Chief Engineer on 7.2.94 as per directions of the Hon'ble High Court then how it can be said that Defendants were at fault for not releasing the retiral benefits. Further more in view of the orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court and judgment passed by the learned lower court the regular pension has been granted to the Plaintiff vide order dated 24.12.2008 and even entire amount of gratuity has been paid to him. When all the amounts had already been released, then this appeal has rather become infructuous. Even, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the findings recorded by the learned trial court on the aforesaid issues. Rather all these issues have been decided on the basis of well settled principles of law. 5. Meaning thereby, the Ist appellate Court has recorded a finding of fact based on the evidence that the Plaintiff was at fault, who did not appear before the Chief Engineer on the date fixed by the High Court to settle and render the accounts. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has miserably failed to point out as to how and in what manner, the judgment of Ist appellate Court is illegal. 6. Moreover, what is not disputed here is that the entire amount of retiral benefits, regular pension and gratuity has already been paid to the Plaintiff by the Defendants. Above -all, since no question of law, muchless substantial, is involved, so, no interference is warranted, in the impugned judgment of the first appellate Court in the obtaining circumstances of the present case. 7. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned Counsel for the Appellant. 8. In the light of aforementioned reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant appeal is hereby dismissed as such.;