Judgment : Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (Oral) The plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 98,900/-alongwith pendent lite and future interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the allegation that the plaintiff was working as Assistant Development Officer and retired from the service of the defendant/appellant on 30.6.1994. Vide endorsement No. HIM-K&VIB/Estt/274 dated nil and endorsement No. HIM-K&VIB/Estt/274-6296 dated 8.7.1996, the Chairman of the defendant ordered the release of an amount of Rs. 42,842/- to the plaintiff as gratuity and thereafter vide another office order No.HIM-K&VIB/Estt/274 dated nil and endorsement No. HIM-K&VIB/Estt/274-6290 dated 5.7.1996, the Chairman sanctioned the encashment of leave salary of 240 days. It was further alleged that the salary of the plaintiff on the date of his retirement i.e. 30.6.1994 was adjusted by the defendant to be Rs. 3,731/- and in accordance therewith, a sum of Rs. 29,704/- was to be paid to the plaintiff. Hence, the total amount of Rs. 72,546/- was to be paid to the plaintiff by the defendant as gratuity and leave salary. The plaintiff was also entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum which worked out to be Rs. 26,354/- till the date of filing of the suit. Hence the suit. 2. The defendant contested the suit by filing a written statement inter alia raising preliminary objections regarding suit not being maintainable as it was service matter, suit having been filed with malafide intention, valuation, time barred and non-joinder of necessary parties. On merits, it was admitted that the gratuity and leave salary amount due to the plaintiff had not been released to him but adjusted against the recovery which is due towards the plaintiff against mustard seeds (Sarson) sold to the private parties on credit during the year 1986 without obtaining security for the same. It was claimed that the amount of Rs. 72,546/- had not released to the plaintiff but was adjusted in the record. Accordingly, the suit was sought to be dismissed. 3. The plaintiff filed replication reiterating and asserting the stand maintained in the plaint and refuting all the allegations contained in the written statement. 4. On 27.3.2001 the learned trial Court framed the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant, as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form being service matter, as alleged? OPP 3. 4. On 27.3.2001 the learned trial Court framed the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant, as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form being service matter, as alleged? OPP 3. Whether this Court has jurisdiction to try the suit? OPP (objected to) 4. Whether the defendant is entitled to adjust the suit amount against the retirement dues of the plaintiff, as alleged? OPD 5. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD 6. Whether the suit is within limitation? OPP 7. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD 8. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to consider the defence qua the recovery of any amount from the plaintiff as alleged? OPD 9. Relief. 5. After recording and evaluating the evidence, the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 19.12.2006 was pleased to partly decreed the suit by passing a decree for recovery of Rs. 85,723/- with costs alongwith pendent lite and future interest at the rate of 6% per annum. 6. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of the learned trial Court, the defendant/appellant preferred an appeal before the learned lower Appellate Court, which appeal has been ordered to be dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 30.9.2013. It is in this background, the defendant/appellant is before the Court in regular second appeal. 7. I have heard Ms. Reeta Goswami, Advocate, learned counsel for the appellant and have also gone through the records carefully. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant has strenuously argued that the learned lower Appellate court has failed to take into consideration that the respondent had cleverly filed an Original Application being O.A. No.(D) 445/2001 for the recovery of the same amount before the learned Tribunal for which the present suit has also been filed and thus, the present suit was not maintainable. It was further argued that under Rule 33 of the H.P.Khadi Board & Village Industries Rules, certain recoveries were found due towards the respondent and therefore, the payments which were due to him, had been adjusted. It was further argued that under Rule 33 of the H.P.Khadi Board & Village Industries Rules, certain recoveries were found due towards the respondent and therefore, the payments which were due to him, had been adjusted. The learned counsel has further argued that the learned lower Appellate Court has not correctly decided the application preferred by the appellant under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for adducing additional evidence wherein it was clearly proved that the plaintiff/respondent had already been paid a sum of Rs. 79,354/- vide cheque No. 720462 dated 22.7.2003. 9. From the pleadings of the parties, it is absolutely clear that the plaintiff has admitted that a sum of Rs. 72,546/- was due to the plaintiff as gratuity and leave encashment. According to the defendant, the said amount was not released but was adjusted against the recoveries vide office orders Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2. While on the other hand, the defendant has failed to lead any evidence to show as to what amount was due to be adjusted from the plaintiff in the trial Court. Thus, for this purpose an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for leading additional evidence was preferred by the defendant before the learned lower Appellate Court. Ex.AW-2/B is the order dated 28.12.2005 passed by the H.P. State Administrative Tribunal vide which the relief as prayed for, for the grant of retiral benefits had been allowed by the learned Tribunal. 10. The learned courts below have concurrently found that no actual payment had been made to the plaintiff towards his gratuity and leave encashment and, therefore, the defendant/appellant was bound to pay the same and the learned lower Appellate Court has further held that the cheque produced alongwith the application for additional evidence and exhibited as Ex.AW-2/A was certainly not relating to gratuity and leave encashment and was for medical re-imbursement. 11. The learned Courts below have painstakingly dealt with the matter meticulously after taking into consideration the pleadings, examining and evaluating the evidence led by the parties in the right perspective, these findings are pure findings of fact and, therefore, cannot be interfered with by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. No question much less substantial question of law arises for consideration and accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in limine.