THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF WORKS AND HOUSING, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND ORS. versus SH. MOHINDER SINGH JAGDEV AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 736 · Decided: 16-08-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF WORKS AND HOUSING, 
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND ORS. 
v. 
SH. MOHINDER SINGH JAGDEV AND ORS. 
B 
AUGUST 16, 1996 
(K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.) 
Limitation Ac~ 1963 : Section 3 Article 58. 
C 
Central Govemmellt (Temporary) SeTVice Rules, 1949 : Rule 5. 
Suit against temzin'i,tion of seTVice-Limitation period for-CPWD-
Section Officer-Appointment obtained by producing false certificates-Initia-
tion of cn·minal proceedings-Tennination under Rule 5 on 10.9.1957-Ac-
quittal by Trial Court-Representation for reinstatement rejected by 
D Govemmenr-Suit for declaration filed on 13th August 1965-As the suit was 
not filed within 3 years from the date of dismissal Trial Judge dismissed the 
same as time ba"ed-Division Bench of the High Court holding that suit was 
not time barred as the same was filed after rejection of his application for 
reinstatement and consequent to the acquittal by the criminal court on 
E 8.5.1964-Appeal by State-Held Article 58 envisages that to obtain "any 
other" declaration the limitation of three years begins to run from <he period 
when the right to sue ''first accrues''-The right to.sue had first accrued to the 
respondent's seTVices came to be tenninated'-On expiry of three years from 
the date of dismissal of the respondent from seTVice, the respondent had lost 
F 
his right to sue for declaration-Held suit filed by respondent held time 
barred. 
State of Punjab & Ors. v. Gurdev Singh, JT (1991) 3 SC 465, relied on. 
Babula/ v. State of Haryana & Ors., [1991] 2 SCC 335 and State of 
G M.P. v. Syed Qamaral/~ (1967) SLR 228, held Inapplicable. 
Constitution of India, 1950 : Articles 77 and 300. 
Suit against Union of India-Decree-Appeal prefmed by Secretary of 
the Ministry concerned-Held the appeal was competently laid-Cause title 
H as Secretary instead of Union of India is not conclusive. 
736 
' 
SECY., MIN. OF WORKS AND HSG. v. MO HINDER SINGH JAGDEV 737 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 : Sectio11 79 read with Order 27 Rule A 
[. 
Article 136-Special Leave Petitio11-Delay i11 fi/ing-Cowisel who ap-
peared in High Cowt for Union of India se11ding the record to Govemment 
after expiry of period of /imitation-Delay in prefening petition in such 
circumstances held properly explained-Delay does not debar to consider the 
matter on menits. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 11378 of 
1996. 
B 
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.3.94 of the Delhi High Court C 
in R.F.A. (OS) No. 27 of 1994. 
Ms. Binu Tamta and Ms. Sushma Suri for the Appellants. 
Keshav Dayal, S.N. Aggarwal, P.D. Sharma and H.K. Puri for the D 
Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel on both sides. 
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and order 
dated March 22, 1994 made by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court 
in RFA (OS) No. 27/94. The admitted facts are that the respondent came 
to be appointed on March 7, 1956 as Section Officer in the Central Public 
Works Department. Thereafter, the Executive Engineer discovered on 
October 6, 1956 that he had the appointment on producing false certifi-
cates. Consequently, a report was laid under Section 420, 468 and 127, 
Indian Penal Code and he was kept under suspension. Independent there-
E 
F 
of, exercising the power under Rule 5 of the Central Government Services 
(Temporary) Service Rules 1949, his services were terminated by order 
dated September 10, 1957. The respondent after his acquittal by the 
criminal court laid the suit in Jonna pauperis on August 13, 1965 seeking G 
declaration that the termination of his service was wrong, unconstitutional, 
that he should be deemed to have continued in service and that he was 
entitled to Rs. 84,000 by way of salary and damages by way of expenses 
incurred by him to defend the criminal cases etc. The trial Judge (single 
Judge of the High Court) by his judgment dated March 22, 1994, though H 
738 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
held that the termination order was unconstitutional, since he was ter-
minated without compliance of Article 311(2) of the Constitution, dis-
missed the suit as barred by limitation. On appeal, the Division Bench h,eld 
that the suit was not barred by limitation for the reason that he had laid 
the suit after the rejection of his appiication for reinstatement and conse-
B quent to the acquittal by the criminal court on May 8, 1964 and that, 
therefore, i
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.