S K SAYAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only dispute arising for adjudication in this Regular Second Appeal is that the plaintiff-appellant should have been allowed interest on the amount due to him at the rate of 15% per annum and not at 6% per annum as has been done by the first appellate Court.

(2.) THE facts. The plaintiff, an Advocate of this Court, was appointed as Assistant Advocate-General, Punjab with effect from July 15,1976. His service record throughout was categorised as 'good' and very good'. His services were terminated by order dated June 15, 1982 on the ground that he had interpolated the opinion in the case 'state v. Mohinder Singh (Crl A. NO. 614-DB of 1980) : (1983 Cri LJ 466) filed appeal against the order of termination from service. In the meantime, the apex Court decided the criminal appeal titled Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab and the judgment is reported as AIR 1985 SC 383. The apex Court held that there was no interpolation and that the Public Prosecutor was authorised by the Under Secretary (Home) to file appeal before the High Court against the acquittal and the High Court had erred in holding that the appeal filed by the Slate was not properly presented. Having been exonerated of the charge of interpolation by the apex Court on the basis of which plaintiff's service was terminated, the order of termination was set aside by the State of Punjab vide order dated December 26, 1984 and the plaintiff was reinstated in service. He joined his duty as Assistant Advocate General on January I, 1985. However, it was ordered that the period from June 15,1982 to the date of reinstatement (i. e. December 31, 1984) be treated as dies non. Presumably, the purpose to treat the period as dies non was to declare Shri G. S. Bains, Assistant Advocate General, Senior 10 the plaintiff. The plaintiff challenged the Government's order dated December 26, 1984 by which the period from June 15, 1982 to December 31, 1984 was treated as dies non. He also challenged the order dated June 24,1987 passed by the State Government, by which Shri G. S. Bains was declared senior to him. The trial Court decreed the suit by judgment and decree dated March 9,1989. The State of Punjab challenged the judgment and decree of the trial Court in appeal before the first appellate Court and the plaintiff filed cross-objections assailing the decree of the trial Judge to the extent to which he was denied interest on the arrears of salary. Vide judgment and decree dated January 17, 1990. The appeal filed by the State was dismissed but the cross-objections filed by the plaintiff were accepted by the first appellate Court and it was ordered that the plaintiff would be entitled to payment of interest on the amount due @6% per annum till payment. The State challenged the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court through R. S. A. No. 1375 of 1990, which was dismissed in limine on July 31, 1990.

(3.) IN the instant appeal, the plaintiff has assailed the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court whereby he was allowed interest @ 6% per annum only on the amount due till payment. He claims that he should have been allowed interest on the amount due @15% per annum till payment.