UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. versus PUNJAB SINGH AND ANR.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 728 · Decided: 15-09-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 
v. 
PUNJAB SINGH AND ANR. 
SEPTEMBER 15, 2003 
B 
[R.C. LAHOTI AND ASHOK BHAN, JJ.] 
Limitation Act, I 963 : Section 3: 
Limitation-Prescribed period of-Suit filed after expiry of period of 
C limitation-Trial court decreed the suit-Decree maintained in first and 
second appeals-Validity of-Held: Trial court bound to dismiss a suit 
filed after expiry of period of /imitation-Hence the decree set aside--
Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme, 1972-Swatantrata Sainik Samman 
Pension Scheme, 1980. 
D 
E 
The respondent was granted freedom fighters pension under the 
Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme, 1972. Subsequently, as the re-
spondent's annual income exceeded the limit fixed under the said 
scheme the appellant suspended the release of the pension to the 
respondent. 
However, the appellant promulgated a new scheme known as the 
Swatantrata Sainik Sam man Pension Scheme, 1980 in place of the 1972 
scheme. Under the new scheme, the ceiling on annual income as one 
of the eligibility conditions was waived. 
F 
Thereafter, the appellant issued a fresh grant of pension in favour 
of the respondent under the new scheme with the stipulation that the 
excess amount drawn by him when he was not eligible was liable to 
be adjusted against future payments. Being aggrieved the respondent 
filed a civil suit which was decreed by the trial court. The decree was 
G maintained in first and second appeals. Hence this appeal. 
On behalf of the appellant, it was contended that the suit was 
barred by time, under Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and, 
therefore, the suit could not have been decreed. 
H 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
728 
U.0.1. v.PUNJAB SINGH [LAHOTI, J.] 
729 
HELD : I.I. A civil suit filed more than 16 years after the date A 
of the accrual of the cause of action was clearly barred by time. Under 
Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the trial Court was bound to 
dismiss the suit as having been filed after the prescribed period of 
limitation. The decree could not have been maintained by the first 
appellate Court or the High Court. (730-G-H) 
B 
1.2. A decree passed in clear breach of the mandate of Section 3 
of the Act cannot be allowed to be sustained when specifically objected 
to on this ground. (731-BJ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7360 of C 
2003. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.1.2002 of the Punjab and 
Haryana High Court in R.S.A. No. 1026 of 2000. 
Hemant Sharma and Ms. Sushma Suri for the Appellants. 
Ranbir Yadav, R.S. Suri and Rishi Malhotra for M.S. Dahiya for the 
Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
R.C. LAHOTI, J. : Leave granted. 
D 
E 
Punjab Singh, the respondent No. I, applied for the grant of Freedom 
Fighters Pension under the Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme 1972 framed 
by the Government of India. One of the eligibility conditions was that the F 
applicant's annual income from all sources combined should not exceed 
Rs. 5,000. The respondent showed his total income from agriculture to be 
Rs. 2,500 per annum. The State Government recommended his case for the 
grant of pension and the same was released w.e.f. 15.8.1972. On 7.11.1978, 
the Government of Punjab intimated the Central Government that the G 
annual income of Punjab Singh exceeded Rs. 5,000. The Government of 
India, vide its letter dated 26.12.1978, suspended the release of pension to 
the respondent. The issue as to the verification of his annual income was 
taken up afresh. However, on 1.8.1980, the Government of India prom-
ulgated a fresh scheme, known as Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension H 
730 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A Scheme, 1980 in place of the 1972 Scheme. Under the new scheme the 
ceiling on annual income as one of the eligibility conditions was waived. 
On 24.9.1980, the Government of India issued a fresh grant of 
pension in favour of the respondent directing release of pension w .e.f. 
B 1.8.1980 under the new scheme and at the same time directing that the 
amount drawn by him during the period when he was not eligible shall be 
liable to be adjusted against future payments. On 23 .11.1996, the respond-
ent filed a civil suit laying challenge to that much part of the order dated 
24.9.1980 which upheld his ineligibility for the grant of pension under the 
C 1972 Scheme and consequently directed adjustment of excess payment 
against the pension due and payable w.e.f. 1.1.1989. The suit has been 
decreed. by the trial Cour

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.