- (1.) The Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Bhiwani, vide judgment dated 27.09.2007 accepted the appeal filed by the plaintiff-respondent (hereinafter referred as 'the plaintiff') and dismissed the appeal filed by the defendants-appellants (hereinafter referred as 'the defendants') against the judgment and decree dated 08.04.2005 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhiwani, whereby suit of the plaintiff was partly decreed. The plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration challenging the order of recovery dated 27.03.2002 from the pensionary benefits payable to her on the death of her husband, as illegal. She has also challenged the order dated 11.11.2002 passed by the defendants, by virtue of which, she was denied the compassionate appointment and further prayed for refund of the amount, withheld by the defendants out of the pensionary benefits against the recovery to be effected from her husband, along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum upon the amount, so withheld.
(2.) The trial Court partly decreed the suit of the plaintiff and awarded refund of Rs. 76,250/-, which was kept in suspense account by the defendants along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the said amount and delayed payment of the pensionary benefits with effect from January, 2001 till the date of payment. The said judgment was challenged by the plaintiff with a prayer that she may be given compassionate appointment.
(3.) At the same time, the defendants also filed an appeal against the said judgment. The first Appellate Court, while dismissing the appeal filed by the defendants, partly accepted the appeal of Kamlesh Devi to the effect that the recovery of amount of Rs. 76,250/- cannot be made and the amount be released to the plaintiff along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of accrual the realization of the whole amount with a further declaration that plaintiff-Kamlesh is entitled to a job on compassionate grounds under ex-gratia scheme in accordance with rules of the Government of Haryana. Feeling aggrieved, the defendants have preferred this regular second appeal.;