Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurbax Singh vs Pepsu Board Transport Corporation And ... on 23 April, 2014
Author: Hemant Gupta
Bench: Hemant Gupta
1
IN THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
AT CHANDIGARH
Date of decision: 23.04.2014
RSA No.1363 of 1997(O&M)
Gurbax Singh ....Appellant
Versus
Pepsu Board Transport Corporation and others .....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
Present: Mr. S.K. Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. P.S. Thiara, Advocate for the respondents.
HEMANT GUPTA, J.
The plaintiff is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby his suit for declaration challenging the orders dated 29.03.1979, 17.10.1980, 01.04.1981 & 21.08.1986 whereby punishment of stoppage of 2/3 increments with cumulative effect was imposed against the appellant, was dismissed.
The plaintiff has sought declaration to the effect that such orders are not speaking orders and violate the principles of natural justice. Such suit was filed on 28.07.1992. Both the Courts have found that the suit is barred by limitation, as the right to sue arose when the orders of punishment of stoppage of increments were passed on the dates mentioned above.
Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the stoppage of increments with cumulative effect has a recurring cause of action affecting pay and allowance payable to him and therefore, the suit cannot be Kumar Vimal 2014.04.26 10:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh 2 said to be barred by limitation. Reliance is placed upon judgment of this Court in Malkiat Singh Vs. State of Haryana, 2008 (2) SLR 192 and Yog Raj Mittal, since deceased through is legal representatives Vs. State of Punjab and others, 2008 (4) SLR 169.
The question of law as to whether, the punishment of stoppage of increments has the recurring cause of action or that suit is to be instituted within three years of the passing of the order was considered by the Division Bench is RSA No.1927 of 1994 titled 'Amar Singh Vs. State of Punjab' decided on 03.05.2006. In the aforesaid case, the challenge was to 12 orders in respect of stoppage of increments with or without cumulative effect. Such suit was filed after three years of passing of the last of such order as well. The learned Division Bench relied upon an earlier judgment of the Division Bench in Randhir Singh Vs. State of Haryana 1994 (3) RSJ 110 to hold that the suit instituted on 12.04.1990 against the 12th order passed on 23.07.1984 is clearly barred by limitation and had been rightly dismissed by the lower Appellate Court. While dismissing the appeals filed by the plaintiff, the Bench also placed reliance on two judgments of the Supreme Court in Punjab State & another Vs. Darshan Kumar 1995 Supp. (4) SCC 220 and State of Punjab & others Vs. Rajinder Singh, Conductor 1999 SCC (L&S)
664. It has been held that the suit for declaration challenging the order of punishment of the stoppage of increments has to be disputed before the civil court within three years. The suit filed after three years is barred by limitation.
The judgments referred to by the appellant have not considered the judgment of the Division Bench in Amar Singh's case (supra). Therefore, the said judgments of the learned single Judge do not lay down Kumar Vimal 2014.04.26 10:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh 3 any binding precedent. I am bound by the larger Bench judgment in Amar Singh's case (supra). In view of the categorical finding recorded by the Division Bench of this Court in Amar Singh's case (supra), I do not find that any substantial question of law arises for consideration which may warrant interference in the present second appeal.
Dismissed (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 23 .04.2014 Vimal Kumar Vimal 2014.04.26 10:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh