Supreme Court of India
PUNJAB STATE AND ANR. versus DARSHAN KUMAR on 2 November 1995
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
PUNJAB STATE AND ANR. v.
DARSHAN KUMAR
A
NOVEMBER 2, 1995
[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.]
B
Seivice Law :
Increments-Withholding of-Suit filed on the ground that orders were not communicated--Suit decreed by T1ial Court and upheld by Appellate C Court-Suit-Whether ban-ed by limitatiort-Held : Plea of non-communica-tion not taken-F.,xcept two orders, all other orders passed before three years of filing of the suit-Hence ban-ed by /imitatiort-Limitation Act, 1963.
The Respondent filed a suit challenging the orders passed by the competent authority, withholding his increments. The Civil Court held that D since the procedure contemplated nuder the relevant rules had not been followed in conducting the enquiry, the suit was not barred by limitation. The Appellate Court had only stated that no order was communicated. Hence this appeal by the State Government.
E
Allowing the appeal, this Conrt
HELD : 1. It does not appear that the respondent had taken the plea that the orders were not communicated to him. Admittedly, the suit was filed on September 25, 1989. Except the orders of October 8, 1987 and November 3, 1988 all other orders were passed before three years of the filing of the suit and are clearly barred by limitation. [728-E]
F
2. The decree of the Trial Court . is modified to the extent that withholding oft.he increments by orders dated October 8, 1987 and Novem-ber 3, 1988 are invalid in law. In other respects, the claims are barred by limitation. [728-F]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 10269 of 1995
G
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.3.93 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in R.S.A. No. 483 of 1993. 727
H
A
Sanjay Bansal for G.K. Bansal for the Appellant.
R.K. Mahajan and B.Y. Kulkarni for the Respondent.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
B
Leave granted
In this case, the respondent had filed the suit questioning the orders dated 19.5.76, 28.12.77, 13.10.78, 2.7.79, 18.5.84, 29.5.86, 8.10.87 and 3.11.88 passed by the competent authority, withholding the increments. The Civil Court considered the question of limitation and held that since the proce-C dure contemplated under the relevant rules had not been followed in conducting the enquiry, the suit is not barred by limitation. The Appellate Court has only stated that "no order was communicated".
D
E
F
We have gone through the allegation stated in the plaint and written statement as extracted in the judgment of the Trial Court. It does not appear that the respondent had taken the plea that the orders were not communicated to him. Admittedly, the suit was filed on September 25, 1989. Except the orders of October 8, 1987 and November 3, 1988 all other orders were passed before three years of the filing of the suit and are . clearly barred by limitation.
Under these circumstances, the decree of the Trial Court is modified to the extent that withholding of the increments by orders dated October 8, 1987 and November 3, 1988 are invalid in law. In other respects, the claims are barred by limitation.
The appeal is allowed accordingly. No costs.
G.N.