Judgment VINEY MITTAL, J. 1. On December 9, 2005, the following order was passed by this court:- "mr. Berry states that the appellants have already given all the benefits to the respondent under the new Policy and instructions applicable w. e. f.1.1.1996. The receipt of the aforementioned benefits is denied by Mr. H. S. Gill, Senior Advocate for the respondent. Mr. Berry, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab prays for time to produce the record of the aforementioned benefits which have been given to the respondent. Adjourned to 24.2.2006. " 2. Today, at the time of arguments, Mr. D. S. Jandiala, the learned additional Advocate General, Punjab, appearing for the appellants says that he has no instructions with regard to the grant of the aforesaid benefits. In these circumstances, it has to be inferred that the necessary relief has not been granted to the plaintiff- respondent. 3. The learned counsel for the parties have been heard on the merits of the controversy. This order shall dispose of two Regular Second Appeals being r. S. A. No.3037 of 2004 and R. S. A. No.3038 of 2004 as both the appeals have arisen out of one suit filed by the plaintiff- respondent. 4. The defendants State of Punjab and others are in appeal. A suit for declaration and for mandatory injunction was filed by the plaintiff-respondent-Dr. Ravinder Kumar Kohli. He claimed that he had completed his post graduation in June/ July 1999 from Government Rajendra Hospital/ Government medical college, Patiala. On the strength of the aforesaid higher qualification, the plaintiff claimed that he was entitled to six post- graduate increments w. e. f. July 1999. 5. Repeated requests made by the plaintiff remained without response from the defendants. The plaintiff also claimed that he was entitled to conveyance allowance, House Rent Allowance and special increment for family planning programme. 6. The defendants contested the suit filed by the plaintiff and maintained that the additional increments for the post- graduate qualification could not be granted to the plaintiff as the matter regarding the grant of such increments for house job and post- graduate Course was under consideration before the 7. Implementation Committee/ Finance Department. Various other pleas were also raised to contest the claim of the plaintiff. 8. The learned trial Court noticed that the plaintiff had acquired the higher qualification and as per the instructions Ex. Implementation Committee/ Finance Department. Various other pleas were also raised to contest the claim of the plaintiff. 8. The learned trial Court noticed that the plaintiff had acquired the higher qualification and as per the instructions Ex. P.2 dated May 23, 2001, and earlier instructions dated October 27, 1993 had been withdrawn. The plaintiff was thus held entitled to the benefit of six annual grade increments of his postgraduation degree. The suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed to the aforesaid extent. 9. An appeal was filed by the defendants challenging the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court. A separate appeal was also filed by the plaintiff claiming interest on the delayed payment. 10. Both the appeals were heard together by the learned first Appellate court. The learned first Appellate Court on re-examination of the controversy came to the identical conclusion as had been arrived at by the learned trial court. 11. The plaintiff was additionally held entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum. Consequently, the appeal filed by the defendants was dismissed and appeal filed by the plaintiff was allowed for interest, as above. Nothing has been shown that the findings recorded by both the courts below suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to record. No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises in the present appeal Dismissed.