ORDER

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dated 23-3-1990 allowing the Civil Revision No. 1182 of 1988 filed by the respondent against the order dated 18-1-1988 passed by the Sub-Judge, First Class, Jalandhar in proceedings relating to execution of decree dated 9-4-1987.

2. The facts briefly stated are as follows.

3. The respondent was employed as Conductor in the Punjab Roadways, Jalandhar. His services were terminated by order dated 17-11-1978 on the a ground of his absence from duty with effect from 22-6-1975. On 6-8-1986 the respondent filed a suit for declaration that the order of termination of his services dated 17-11-1978 was illegal and invalid and was passed in contravention of the provisions of Punjab Civil Service Rules. The said suit was decreed by the Sub-Judge, First Class, Jalandhar and it was declared that the order of termination dated 17-11-1978 was null and void. Thereafter, the respondent filed an execution application, which has given rise to this appeal wherein he has claimed a sum of Rs 1,20,395 on account of arrears of salary for the period from 22-6-1975 onwards. In these execution proceedings the appellants filed an objection that the respondent is only entitled to arrears of salary for the period of 38 months prior to the date of the filing of the suit and not for the entire period from the date of the order of termination.

Accepting the said objection the executing court passed the order dated 18-1-1988 directing the appellants to pay the arrears of salary for three years and two months prior to the filing of the suit and for the subsequent period. The respondent filed a revision against the said order of the executing court which has been allowed by the High Court by the impugned judgment. The High Court has held that a distinction has to be made between an order of termination which is illegal and an order which is null and void and that in cases where the order of termination is null and void no question of limitation arises and, therefore, the respondent is entitled to payment of salary for the entire period from the date of the order and the executing court could not confine the payment of arrears for the period of 38 months prior to the date of filing of the suit.

4. In the present case we are not going into the question whether the respondent in execution proceedings could claim the arrears 6f salary even though the decree which has been passed in the suit was only for a declaration that the order of termination was null and void. The controversy in the present appeal is confined to the question whether the respondent can claim only the arrears of salary for the period of 38 months prior to the filing of the suit or he can claim the salary for the entire period from the date of the passing of the order of termination of his services. The view of the High Court that a distinction has to be made between an order of termination which is illegal and an order which is null and void and that the question of limitation does not arise in cases where the order of termination is null and void cannot be sustained in view of the decision of this Court in State of Punjab v. Gurdev Singh, wherein this Court has laid down that a suit for declaration that an order of dismissal or termination from service passed against the dismissed employee is wrongful, illegal and ultra vires is governed by Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and it cannot be said that there is no limitation for instituting the suit for declaration in such cases. The claim of the respondent for salary could, therefore, be confined to the period falling within the period of limitation prescribed for such a suit, i.e., three years and two months prior to the date of filing of the suit and the High Court could not give a direction for payment of salary for the entire period from the date of the passing of the order of termination of the services of the a respondent.

5. The appeal is, th