Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1694 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Premwati Sharma

2013-09-23

ALOK SHARMA

body2013
JUDGMENT : Alok Sharma, J. Aggrieved of the judgment and decree dated 13.08.2012, passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur decreeing the plaintiff-respondent's (hereinafter 'the plaintiff') suit for recovery of Rs. 58,650/-, this first appeal under Section 96 CPC has been filed by the defendants-appellants (hereinafter 'the defendants'). 2. The facts of the case are that the husband of the plaintiff was employed with Ayurved Department, Government of Rajasthan. He expired on 17.04.1991. On this, the plaintiff, being his wife, became entitled for payment of gratuity. The defendants, State of Rajasthan, sanctioned the gratuity amount of Rs. 65,538/-. However, payment only of Rs. 50,538/- was made and Rs. 15,000/- unlawfully withheld by the defendants without any good reason. In these circumstances, the plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of the remainder amount of Rs. 15,000/- on account of gratuity due following her husband's death and also claimed interest thereon @ 18% p.a. for the period commencing 22.06.1992 till the date of filing of the suit in 2008. Further interest pendente lite was also sought. 3. On service of notice, the defendants filed a written statement of denial. The trial court, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, framed two issues which loosely translated in English are as under : (i) as to whether the unlawful detention of Rs. 15,000/- due and payable to the plaintiff on account of gratuity following husband's death was justifiable ? (ii) as to whether the plaintiff was entitled in an aggregate amount of Rs. 58,650/- constituted of principal sum of Rs. 15,000/- and interest thereon @ 18% for the period of unlawful detention of the gratuity payable in law ? 4. On consideration of the evidence led before it by the parties, the trial court came to the conclusion that once the gratuity amount of Rs. 65,538/- had been sanctioned to the plaintiff after treating 468 days leave between the period 14.06.1987 to 23.09.1988 as extraordinary leave, there was no justification for payment of only Rs. 50,538/- due and payable as gratuity and withholding Rs. 15,000/-. So holding, the trial court directed that the said amount of Rs. 15,000/- unlawfully withheld by the defendants be paid to the plaintiff along with interest @ 12% p.a. effective 22.06.1992 to 30.08.2008 i.e. till the date of filing of the suit and thereafter @ 6% p.a. till the date of payment. 15,000/-. So holding, the trial court directed that the said amount of Rs. 15,000/- unlawfully withheld by the defendants be paid to the plaintiff along with interest @ 12% p.a. effective 22.06.1992 to 30.08.2008 i.e. till the date of filing of the suit and thereafter @ 6% p.a. till the date of payment. 5. I have heard the counsel for the defendants as also the plaintiff and perused the judgment and decree dated 13.08.2012, passed by the trial court. 6. From the facts on record, it is established that the plaintiff's husband was an employee of the Ayurved Department, Government of Rajasthan and following his death on 17.04.1991, the plaintiff as the wife of the deceased became entitled to the gratuity amount. The State Government after having condoned the absence of the plaintiff's husband on account of illness for the period 14.06.1987 to 23.09.1988 as extraordinary leave proceeded to sanction an amount of Rs. 65,538/- as gratuity. This amount was however not paid to the plaintiff and only a sum of Rs. 50,538/- was paid consequent to which a sum of Rs. 15,000/- remained wrongfully withheld with the State Government without any just cause till the filing of the suit for recovery in 2008. In these circumstances, in my considered opinion, the trial court has committed no error in holding that for wrongful withholding of gratuity amount of Rs. 15,000/- for the period 22.06.1992 till the filing of the suit in 2008, the plaintiff aside of the amount in issue was also entitled to interest @ 12% p.a. thereon for the period aforesaid till the filing of the suit and subsequent to the filing of the suit interest @ 6% p.a. till the date of payment. The judgment and decree of the trial court, in my considered opinion, is based on facts which are not in dispute and obtaining law. The judgment and decree dated 13.08.2012 is not liable to be interfered with on any ground whatsoever in this first appeal. 7. Consequently, the civil first appeal is without force and the same is dismissed. Stay application also stands dismissed. Appeal Dismissed.