Punjab-Haryana High Court
Swaran Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another on 13 May, 2011
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
R.S.A.No. 4685 of 2010(O&M) 1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
R.S.A.No. 4685 of 2010(O&M)
Date of decision: 13.5.2011
Swaran Singh
......Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab and another
.......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr. H.S.Baath, Advocate
for the appellant.
****
SABINA, J.
The plaintiff had filed a suit challenging order dated 29.5.1992, whereby he was discharged from service.
The case of the plaintiff, in brief, was that he was recruited as Special Police Officer (SPO for short) on 10.8.1988. The plaintiff was recruited as a constable on 20.6.1991. Vide the impugned order, the plaintiff was discharged from service without affording him any opportunity of being heard. R.S.A.No. 4685 of 2010(O&M) 2
The defendants, in their written statement, averred that the suit filed by the plaintiff was time barred. The plaintiff was appointed as SPO on daily wage basis. He was a habitual absentee and had neither been selected nor recruited as a Constable. Since the plaintiff was working on daily wage basis, no regular enquiry was required to be conducted against him.
On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:-
"1. Whether impugned order dated 29.5.1992 and 13.7.1999 are illegal, null and void? OPP
2. Whether plaintiff is entitled for declaration as prayed for ? OPP
3. Whether plaintiff is entitled for mandatory injunction as prayed for? OPP.
4.Whether suit is filed within period of limitation ? OPD
5. Whether plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit ? OPD
6. Whether suit is bad for want of prior notice U/S 80 CPC ? OPD
7. Relief."
The trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 1.12.2007. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, plaintiff preferred an appeal and the same was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 13.8.2008 passed by the District Judge. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff.
After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I am of R.S.A.No. 4685 of 2010(O&M) 3 the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal.
The plaintiff was discharged from service vide order dated 29.5.1992. However, the plaintiff filed a suit on 17.12.1999, after more than seven years challenging the order of discharge from service.
It has been held in, State of Punjab Vs. Gurdev Singh Ashok Kumar 1991(5) S.L.R. 1, as under:-
" It will be clear from these principles, the party aggrieved by the invalidity of the order has to approach the Court for relief of declaration that the order against him is inoperative and not binding upon him. He must approach the Court within the prescribed period of limitation. If the statutory time limit expires the Court cannot give the declaration sought for."
There is no force in the argument raised by learned counsel for the appellant that the plaintiff could file the suit after the dismissal of his appeal. The plaintiff had filed the appeal in January, 1999 challenging the order dated 29.5.1992 and the same was dismissed vide order dated 13.7.1999. The filing of appeal after such a long period would not extend the period of limitation. The period of limitation once it starts running does not stop. The limitation for filing the suit had started running after the impugned order was passed. The plaintiff could have challenged the said order by filing a suit within a period of three years. However, the plaintiff filed the suit after more than seven years. The Courts below have, thus, rightly R.S.A.No. 4685 of 2010(O&M) 4 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff being time barred.
No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal, which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.
(SABINA) JUDGE May 13, 2011 anita