Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 1
PETITIONER:
PUNJAB STATE & ANR.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
DARSHAN KUMAR
DATE OF JUDGMENT02/11/1995
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
HANSARIA B.L. (J)
CITATION:
1995 SCC Supl. (4) 220 JT 1995 (9) 130
1995 SCALE (6)479
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
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 procedure 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 allegations stated in the
plaint and written 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.
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.
The appeal is allowed accordingly. No costs.