R.S.A.No. 1040 of 2007 {1}
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
R.S.A.No. 1040 of 2007
Date of Decision:July 21, 2009
Babu Lal
---Appellant
versus
Government of Haryana and others
---Respondents
Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
***
Present: Mr.J.P.Sharma,Advocate,
for the appellant
Mr. Sukant Gupta, Addl. A.G., Haryana
***
SABINA, J.
Plaintiff – Babu Lal had filed a suit for declaration challenging
orders dated 19.5.1983, 26.7.1983, 14.12.1983 and 17.9.2001. Suit of the
plaintiff was dismissed by Additional Civil Judge ( Junior Division),
Narnaul vide judgment and decree dated 31.5.2005 on the ground that the
suit was time barred. In appeal, the judgment and decree were upheld by
District Judge, Narnaul vide judgment and decree dated 9.6.2006. Hence,
the present appeal.
The facts of the case as noticed by the learned District Judge,
R.S.A.No. 1040 of 2007 {2}
in paras 2 and 3 of its judgment read as under:-
“Plaintiff was working as Patwari with the defendants. He was
charge sheeted and consequently, was removed from service
vide order dated 14.9.1981. He had filed an appeal. The
appeal was accepted. Penalty of stoppage of three increments
with cumulative effect was imposed ordering that the entire
period of the plaintiff when he was out of service was to be
treated as leave of the kind due. Plaintiff was taken back in
service vide order dated 26.7.1983 of the Collector, Narnaul.
Vide order dated 14.12.1983, the S.D.O.(Civil), Mahendergarh
had regularized the period w.e.f. 17.1.1981 to 26.7.1983 by
granting earned leave with full pay for 96 days and leave
without pay for 462 days.
It is claimed by the plaintiff that period of
pendency of the appeal should have been considered as the one,
spent on duty. In short, the plaintiff claimed pay and
allowances for the period when the appeal remained pending.
The plaintiff had made a representation to the Commissioner,
Gurgaon Division Gurgaon which was returned that the same
was to be filed before Commissioner, Hissar Division. Order
dated 10.9.1994 was made. Consequently, the plaintiff had
submitted his representation to the Commissioner, Hissar
Division, Hissar but the same was again returned with the
remarks that the Commissioner Gurgaon Division had the
jurisdiction. Consequently, the plaintiff had submitted the
representation to the Commissioner, Gurgaon Division. Vide
R.S.A.No. 1040 of 2007 {3}
order dated 8.11.1995 Commissioner Gurgaon had referred the
matter to the Financial Commissioner (Revenue Department),
Government of Haryana. The plaintiff submitted reminders
dated 21.7.2001 and 2.8.2004. He was informed on 17.8.2004
that his appeal had been rejected. Against the said order of the
Commissioner, the plaintiff had filed an appeal before the
Financial Commissioner (Revenue Department), Haryana. The
appeal was dismissed on 16.11.2005.
In the written statement, the defendants asserting
the validity and legality of the impugned orders, had sought
dismissal of the suit alleging that it was barred by limitation.”
On the pleadings of the parties, trial court framed the following
issues:-
“(1)Whether the impugned orders dated 19.5.1983, 26.7.1983,
14.12.1983 and 17.9.2001 are illegal, null and void and liable
to be set aside as alleged? OPP
(2)Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the all consequential
benefits and arrears of pay which remain pending i.e.
17.9.1981 to 26.7.1983 with interest @ 18% per annum as
alleged? OPP
(3)Whether the suit is barred by time ? OPD
(4)Relief.
After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the
opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that issue No.
3, whether the suit is barred by time, was treated as preliminary issue.
R.S.A.No. 1040 of 2007 {4}
However, no opportunity was granted to the plaintiff to lead any evidence
in this regard.
There is no dispute with regard to the proposition of law that
question of limitation is a mixed question of law and facts. However, in the
present case, facts are not disputed. Admittedly, plaintiff was removed
from service vide order dated 14.9.1981. In departmental appeal,
punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect was
imposed and the plaintiff was ordered to be reinstated in service. The said
order was passed on 26.7.1983. Period of absence from 17.1.1981 to
26.7.1983 was regularized by granting earned leave to the plaintiff. Against
the order dated 26.7.1983, plaintiff filed a representation in the year 1994.
In these circumstances, the courts below have rightly held that the suit of
the plaintiff was time barred as he had failed to challenge order dated
19.5.1983 whereby his services were terminated and order dated 26.7.1983
passed in appeal within the prescribed period of limitation.
No substantial question of law arises in this appeal.
Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.
(SABINA)
JUDGE
July 21, 2009
PARAMJIT