PUNJAB STATE AND ANR. v. DARSHAN KUMAR
Tools
- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Decided
- (year only)
- Bench
- K. RAMASWAMY and B.L. HANSARIA
- Citation
- [1995] Supp. 4 S.C.R. 727
Source PDF (original scan)
Contains information from the Indian High Court / Supreme Court Judgments dataset, licensed under CC-BY-4.0
Headnote — Supreme Court Reports (editorial summary, not part of the judgment)
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.
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 F filing of the suit and are clearly barred by limitation. [728-E]
Reporter's headnote (continued) and case details
NOVEMBER 2, 1995
B
Seivice Law :
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 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] G CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 10269 of 1995
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.3.93 of the Punjab & 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.
Judgment
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.
Report an error in this judgment →
Contains information from the Indian High Court / Supreme Court Judgments dataset, licensed under CC-BY-4.0