- (1.) WITH the consent of the parties the second appeal was heard finally.
(2.) BY this Second Appeal under Section 100 C.P.C. the defendant-appellants, State of Rajasthan & Ors. have challenged the judgment and decree dated 10th August, 2007 passed by Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) No.2, Bharatpur passed in Civil Suit No.112/2002 for declaration and permanent injunction titled as Narendra Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. which has been affirmed by Additional District Judge No.1, Bharatpur vide judgment 25th August, 2009 in Civil Regular Appeal No.04/2008. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the plaintiff respondent filed a civil suit before the trial court for declaration and injunction and claiming thereunder all the consequential benefits of retirement like, pension, gratuity, encashment of leave etc. after his compulsory retirement vide order dated 13th December, 1996 with 24% interest per annum. In the plaint it was averred by the plaintiff respondent that he was punished with the punishment of compulsory retirement vide order dated 13th December, 1996 with proportionate pension but none of the pensionary benefits has been given to him. Therefore, he is entitled for all pensionary benefits along with 24% interest per annum. The defendant appellants filed written statement and objected payment of the pensionary benefits on the ground that against the punishment of compulsory retirement in the High Court writ petition is pending and further contributed the delay on the part of the plaintiff respondent of not completing the service book. It was also mentioned that sanction of provisional pension is possible on furnishing the duly filled required documents by the plaintiff. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed the following five issues:- 1.Whether, after retirement of the plaintiff, the defendants bent upon to deprive him of the benefits of PF amount, gratuity amount, leave encashment amount, monthly pension etc. and other retiral benefits ? 2.Whether, after retirement, due to delay in releasing the pensionary benefits, the plaintiff is entitled for 24% interest per annum with effect from 1.2.98 ? 3.Whether, as per the averments made in para no.16 of the written statement, during pendency of the writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court, the suit is not maintainable ? 4.Whether, the defendants are entitled to get Rs. 2,000/- as special damages under Section 35 of the C.P.C. ? 5.Relief ? That to prove his case, the plaintiff respondent got examined himself as PW.1 and exhibited documents P1 to P56B. In defence the defendants got examined Bhagwan Agarwal as DW.1.
(3.) THE trial court after recording evidence and hearing both the parties decided all the issues in favour of the plaintiff respondent and against the defendant appellants and held that the plaintiff is entitled for the pensionary benefits which have un -necessarily been delayed for a period of six years and ultimately vide judgment and decree dated 10th December, 2007 passed the decree of declaration and injunction for payment of pensionary benefits with all other benefits and consequential benefits with the further direction that the plaintiff is entitled for 18% interest per annum. Feeling aggrieved of the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial court, the defendant-appellants filed regular first appeal before the first appellate court. The first appellate court after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and appreciating the evidence issue wise came to the conclusion that the trial court has not committed any kind of error in recording findings on the issues and passing the judgment and decree regarding retiral benefits along with 18% interest per annum which is based on evidence and, thus, dismissed the first appeal filed by the defendant appellants. ;