SHOBHA SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-plaintiff filed a suit seeking benefit of military service from 22.09.1965 to 29.09.1982, which included the period of emergency when he happened to serve in the Army. The suit filed by the appellant was partly decreed granting him interest at the rate of 12% on the delayed pension amount from the date of his retirement to the actual payment. Against the order passed by the trial Court, department as well as appellant filed an appeal before the First appellate Court. To justify the non payment of the retiral benefit, it is pointed out that charge sheet under Rule 7 of the Haryana Subordinate Service (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules') was pending against the appellant. It was on account of accident caused by him where 5 persons had died at the spot. The criminal case was also pending against the appellant for which the departmental proceedings were held in abeyance till the decision of the criminal court. The pension was released to the appellant but some other retiral benefit was withheld till the decision of the departmental proceedings. On the basis of pleadings, the following issues were settled:

(2.) On the basis of evidence led before the Court, issue No. 1 was decided against the appellant whereas issue No. 2 was partly decided in his favour. Remaining issues No. 3 to 5 were decided against the respondent-department. The suit was accordingly partly decreed.

(3.) The First Appellate Court found that the facts are not much in dispute. The appellant was serving as Driver and had superannuated on 30.09.2005. At that time, he was facing criminal trial for commission of offence under Sections 279, 427 and 304-A IPC. He was driving bus No. HR-56-1925 en-route from Chandigarh to Delhi. He had also been served a charge sheet for award of major penalty under Rule 7 of the rules. While giving his evidence, the appellant stated that the benefit of emergency service had not been granted to him. The appellate Court found that this claim was made without specifically raising the pleading in this regard. A suggestion was put to him during his evidence that benefit of military service was given to him, which he denied. The pleading made by the appellant in this regard was noticed to find that there was no proper pleading made in regard to the period for which the appellant considered himself to be entitled to grant of military service benefit. Similarly, the pleading in regard to pensionary benefit have not been paid was also found to be vague. His evidence was also given on the lines of these pleadings and was accordingly found vague.