STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. LAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The finding of the learned Single Judge that the date of birth of respodent, Lal Singh, is 14.10.1931 and not 14.10.1925. Lal Singh has been superannuated taking his date of birth as 14.10.1925. Apparently, the question as to the date of birth is a question of fact determination of which shall necessarily depend upon some documents as also if necessary on oral evidence. The appellants, however, allowed the matter to be contested before the learned Singal Judge in the writ petition without raising any objection that the matter related to the disputed question of fact and, therefore, the Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution should restrain from entertaining and adjudicate upon such questions. As no such objection was raised before the learned Single Judge, and the learned Single Judge was required to return a finding upon the material on record, he actually appreciated the facts and after a thorough discussion thereof returned a finding that the petitioner's date of birth is 14.10.1931 and not 14.10.1925. A perusal of the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge would disclose that he has taken all pains and has reached a just decision on the available material as to the petitioner's date of birth. Counsel for the appellants, therefore, at this stage cannot be heard to say that the writ petition ought not to have been entertained as it involved disputed questions of fact. Such a plea for the first time cannot be permitted to be raised in this Letters Patent Appeal as clearly it is not a question which relates to the very jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the petition. It is a matter of propriety and, therefore, the Court in its own wisdom created a restraint upon itself to entertain petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution involving patently disputed questions of fact which can be resolved only on appreciation of evidence. We, therefore, reject the contention advanced in support of this appeal that the learned Single Judge ought not to have entertained the petition. Reference to the decision of this Court in Ram Singh Arora vs. State of Punjab, 1989 95 PunLR 124, is clearly misplaced. All that this Court in that decision has observed is that the High Court in its discretion would decline to go into the complicated questions of fact in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. It nowhere says that if a petition is so entertained and a decision is rendered thereupon, the decision is a nullity, and the Court rendering such' a decision can be said to be acting without jurisdiction.

(2.) We, however, find that in the circumstances of this case, the respondent, Lal Singh, has wrongly been held entitled to interest on the amount due from the date of his retirement, i.e., from October 31,1989. He has been made to retire from the date as it appeared on his service record. We are of the opinion that he is entitled to interest on the amount due in accordance with the judgment of the learned Single Judge only from the date of judgment till the date of actual payment and at the rate of 12 per cent per annum as awarded by the learned Single Judge.

(3.) For the reasons aforesaid, we dismiss this appeal subject to the modifications indicated above. No costs.