PUNJAB STATE AND ANR.
A
v.
DARSHAN KUMAR
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.
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]
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
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.3.93 of the Punjab &
E
F
G
Haryana High Court in R.S.A. No. 483 of 1993.
H
727
728
SUPREME.COURTREPQRTS [1995) SUPP. 4S.C.R.
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".
We have gone through the allegation stated in the plaint and written
D
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.
E
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.
F
The appeal is allowed accordingly. No costs.
G.N.
Appeal allowed.
Lex