STATE Vs. GURBUX SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AFTER his retirement as SI of police the respondent -plaintiff applied to the Superintendent of Police, Jammu for pension on 20th Sept. 1970. The Government vide Order No. Home -281 (Police of 1972 dated 2.6.1972 directed that undue retention in service of the plaintiff -respondent from June, 1969 to 15th Dec. 1971 would be treated as re -employment on the pay and allowances as would be admissible under Art. 259 -A of the C. S. R. It was further directed that excess amount if any drawn by the plaintiff shall be recovered from his gratuity. The said Govt. order was challenged in this court which was set aside on 20th Sept. 1973 in pursuance of which the Govt. vide Order No. Home -623 (police) of 1973 dated 22.11.1973 confirmed the order of Inspector General of Police and directed the plaintiff to retire with effect from 16,12.1971. Alleging that on account of illegal and arbitrary order of Government he was deprived for his -pension and gratuity for two years and two months, the plaintiff filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 2099/ - as interest at the rate of 12% with effect from 16.12.1971 on wards on the amount which was allegedly illegally with -held after serving a notice upon the appellant -state under sec. 80 CPC. The facts stated by the plaintiff were not disputed by the defendant -state and it was submitted that the order earlier passed against the plaintiff was not illegal, arbitrary or capricious as alleged. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial court: I. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs. 2099/ - from the defendant? OPP 1. Relief. OPP

(2.) THE trial court of Sub Judge (CJM) Jammu dismissed the holding that interest as damages could not be claimed in view of the judgments of various High Courts and the Honble Supreme Court of India.

(3.) IN appeal the court of Addl. District Judge, Jammu decreed the suit with costs after holding that keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, the court had ample powers to award interest in exercise of its equitable jurisdiction. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the first appellate court this appeal has been filed by the state alleging that the judgment and decree of the first appellate court was against law and facts and that under no provisions of law respondent was entitled to recover the amount of interest for which he had filed a suit. It is submitted that no rule justified the grant of interest even if gratuity or pension was not paid without delay as no specific time is fixed under law for payment of the said amounts. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent appearing in person and have also perused the record.