Back
E. S. VENKATARAMIAH, G. L. OZA, K. N. SINGH, RANGANATH MISRA, S. NATARAJAN, SABYASACHI MUKHARJEE, B. C. RAY
S. S. Rathore – Appellant
Versus
State Of M. P. – Respondent
Yes, the Supreme Court held that for a declaratory suit challenging a dismissal from service under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the right to sue first accrues after exhaustion of remedies under relevant service rules—specifically, from the date of the final order rejecting an appeal or representation, or, if no such order is made, after six months from the date the appeal or representation was filed. (!) (!) (!)
This aligns with the principle that departmental remedies must be pursued first, and limitation does not begin from the original dismissal order due to the merger principle (where the lower authority's order merges into the higher authority's order). (!) (!) (!)
The Court drew guidance from statutory provisions like Sections 20(2) and 20(3) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, deeming remedies "availed" upon a final rejection or after six months without decision (excluding non-statutory memorials). (!) (!) (!) (!)
In the facts of the case, this meant the suit filed on 30-9-1969 (after notice under S.80 CPC) was within time, as calculated from the appellate order dated 31-8-1966 (communicated 19-9-1966). (!) (!) (!)
Judgment
RANGANATH MISRA, J.:- This appeal is by special leave and is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh by which the High Court has in second appeal upheld the dismissal of the plaintiffs suit on the plea of limitation.
2. The plaintiff, a Government Servant of Madhya Pradesh, was dismissed from service by the Collector on 13th of January, 1966. He preferred an appeal to the Divisional Commissioner and that appeal was dismissed on 31-8-1966. The order of dismissal of the appeal was communicated to the plaintiff on 19-9-1966. The plaintiff gave notice under S. 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 17-6-1969 and filed his suit on 30th of September, 1969, asking for a declaration that the order of dismissal was inoperative and he continued to be in service. This suit has been dismissed in the Courts below on acceptance of the defence plea that it had not been filed within three years from the date when the cause of action first arose, as required under Article 58 of the First Schedule of the Limitation Act, 1963.
3. When this appeal came up for hearing before a Division Bench, reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in Sita Ram Goel v. The Municip
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
