THE HARYANA DIARY DEVELOPMENT COOP, FEDERATION LIMITED, CHANDIGARH, THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR Vs. SHRI PAWAN KUMAR SINGHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CIVIL Suit No. 108 of 1986 instituted on 21st July 1986 by Pawan Kumar Singhal seeking the relief of mandatory injunction directing the Haryana Diary Development Cooperative Federation Ltd. and the State of Haryana, in the Department of Dairy Development, to reinstate him in service with all the consequential benefits, was decreed by Sub Judge Ist Class, Chandigarh vide judgment and decree dated 16th March 1991. The operative part of the judgment reads as under: "In view of my findings of the above noted issues, the Plaintiff succeeds in his suit which is hereby decreed with costs and order of suspension (Ex.D1) of the Plaintiff is quashed with all the consequential benefits, including arrears of pay etc. which shall be paid to him within the period of three months from today along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, failing which the Plaintiff shall be entitled to recover the amount in accordance with law."

(2.) FEELING aggrieved, the Defendants preferred Civil Appeal No. 151 of 1991, which was heard and dismissed by Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, vide judgment and decree dated March 21, 1992. It is that judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court which has been appealed against by the Defendants and which requires my examination of its sustainability.

(3.) FIRST argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the Appellants before me is that during the period of suspension, the Plaintiff had entered into a partnership and was thus gainfully employed and, therefore, he was not entitled to any subsistence allowance. Secondly, he has submitted that he had filed application for amendment of the written statement in order to bring this fact on record and prove the same but the learned lower appellate Court dismissed the said application on 21st March 1992, on which date, the appeal was also dismissed. Then he has submitted that here in this R.S.A. also an application for amendment of the written statement has been filed and further that the judgment of the lower appellate Court has also been challenged on the ground of his having dismissed the application for amendment wrongly.