Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, V. RAMASWAMI AND YOGESHWAR DAYAL, JJ.
State of Punjab and others, Appellants
Versus
Gurdev Singh, Ashok Kumar, Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 1852 and 4772 of 1989
Decided on 21-8-1991
Suit for declaration that the dismissal of the employee is wrongful is governed by residuary article 113 of this act - LIMITATION ACT - Suit for declaration that the order of dismissal is wrongful or ultra-vires.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The primary issue concerns the limitation period applicable to a suit filed by an employee challenging the validity of their dismissal. The courts have debated whether such suits are governed by the general limitation provisions or are exempt due to their nature.
The courts have consistently held that if an employee's dismissal is illegal, unconstitutional, or against the principles of natural justice, the employee can approach the court at any time to seek a declaration that they continue to be in service. This implies that there is no prescribed limitation period for such declarations (!) .
Despite these rulings, it is important to recognize that the Limitation Act generally prescribes a time limit for filing suits, and the residuary article (Article 113) provides a three-year limitation period for suits where no specific period is prescribed. This period begins when the right to sue accrues, which is typically when the cause of action arises or when the infringing act occurs (!) (!) .
The right to challenge an order of dismissal is considered to accrue at the point when the employee is precluded from attending work and is deprived of salary, effectively when the order is executed or enforced (!) .
Even if an order of dismissal is void or ultra vires, it may still have de facto legal effects unless and until it is declared null or void by a competent court or authority. Such an order continues to have legal consequences unless challenged within the prescribed limitation period (!) (!) .
The party seeking a declaration that an order of dismissal is void must approach the court within the limitation period; otherwise, the court may refuse relief based on the expiry of the limitation period (!) .
The decision emphasizes that a suit for declaration of invalidity of an order of dismissal is governed by the general limitation provisions, specifically Article 113, which prescribes a three-year limitation period from the date the right to sue arises (!) (!) .
The courts have clarified that the earlier view that such suits are not governed by limitation is incorrect. Instead, the correct legal position is that the suit must be filed within the limitation period applicable to suits for declarations, i.e., three years from the date the cause of action accrues (!) (!) .
In conclusion, the courts have allowed the appeals, set aside the previous judgments, and dismissed the suits, reaffirming that suits challenging the validity of dismissal orders are subject to the limitation period prescribed by law (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific legal advice related to this document.
JUDGMENT
K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J.:
These appeals against the decision of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana raise a short issue concerning limitation governing the suit for declaration by a dismissed employee that he continues to be in service since his dismissal was void and inoperative. The High Court has observed that if the dismissal of the employee is illegal, void or inoperative being in contravention of the mandatory provisions of any rules or conditions of service, there is no limitation to bring a suit for declaration that the employee continues to be in service.
2. The facts giving rise to these appeals, as found by the Courts below, may be summarised as follows.
CA No. 1852/89: The respondent in this appeal was appointed as an ad hoc sub-inspector in the District Food and Supply Department of Punjab State. He absented himself from duty with effect from 29 September 1975. On 27 January 1977, his services were terminated. On 18 April 1984, he instituted the suit for declaration that the termination order was against the principles of natural justice, terms and conditions of employment, void and inoperative and he continues to be in service. The State resisted the suit contending inter alia, that the plaintiffs services were terminated in accordance with the terms, and conditions of his ad hoc appointment and the suit was barred by time. The trial Court accepted the plea of limitation and dismissed the suit, but on appeal the Additional District Judge, Jullundhar decreed the suit. He observed that the termination order though simpliciter in nature was passed as a measure of punishment. The plaintiffs services were terminated for unauthorised absence without an enquiry and he should have been given an opportunity to explain his conduct by holding proper enquiry. On the plea of limitation learned Additional District Judge held that no limitation is prescribed for challenging an illegal order. Since the order of termination was bad, the suit was not barred by time. In the second appeal preferred by the State the High Court agreed with the view following its earlier decisions.
CA No. 4772/ 82: The respondent in this appeal was a Railway Police Constable. He was appointed on 14 November 1977. On 15 March 1979, he was discharged from service for some misconduct. On 15 June 1979, his appeal was rejected by AIG, Railways, Patiala, Punjab. On 30 November 1979, his revision petition was dismissed by the Inspector General of Police, Punjab. On 12 February 1985 he brought a suit seeking declaration that the order discharging him from service and confirmed in the appeal and revision was illegal, ultra vires, unconstitutional and against the principles of natural justice and he continues to be in service as constable. The trial Court dismissed the suit. The appeal preferred by the plaintiff was accepted by the Additional District Judge who decreed the suit as prayed for. He has inter alia stated that the plaintiff was discharged from service in contravention of the mandatory provisions of the rules and as such it has no legal effect. There is no period of limitation for instituting the suit for declaration that such a dismissal order is not binding upon the plaintiff. While affirming that principle, the High Court dismissed the second appeal in limine.
3. These are not the only cases in which the Punjab and Haryana High Court has taken the view that there is no limitation for instituting the suit for declaration by a dismissed or discharged employee on the ground that the dismissal or discharge was void or inoperative. The High Court has repeatedly held that if the dismissal, discharge or termination of services of an employee is illegal, unconstitutional or against the principles of natural justice, the employee can approach the Court at any time seeking declaration that he remains in service. The suit for such reliefs is not governed by any of the provisions of the Limitation Act (See : State of Punjab v. Ajit Singh, (1988) 1 Serv LR 96
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
