Back
1995 Supreme(SC) 1088
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PUNJAB STATE
Versus
DARSHAN KUMAR
Decided on, November 2, 1995
The court's decision was influenced by the non-communication of orders and the compliance with relevant rules in conducting the enquiry, which determined the limitation of the claims.
Headnote:
Limitation - Withholding of Increments - Communication of Orders
Fact of the Case:
The respondent filed a suit questioning the withholding of increments by various orders. The civil court held that the suit is not barred by limitation due to non-compliance with relevant rules in conducting the enquiry. The appellate court found that most orders were passed before three years of filing the suit and were barred by limitation.
Finding of the Court:
The decree of the trial court was modified to declare the withholding of increments by certain orders as invalid in law, while other claims were barred by limitation. The appeal was allowed accordingly.
Issues: Question of limitation, communication of orders
Ratio Decidendi: Non-communication of orders and compliance with relevant rules in conducting the enquiry influenced the court's decision on limitation. Most orders were found to be barred by limitation, except for those passed within three years of filing the suit.
Final Decision: The decree of the trial court was modified, declaring certain orders invalid and allowing the appeal. No costs were awarded.
( 1 ) LEAVE granted.
( 2 ) IN this case, the respondent had filed the suit questioning the Orders dated 19-5-1976, 28/12/1977, 13/10/1978, 2/7/1979, 18/5/1984, 29/5/1986, 8/10/19877 and 3/11/1988 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".
( 3 ) 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 25/9/1989. Except the orders of 8/10/19877 and 3/11/1988 all other orders were passed before three years of the filing of the suit and are clearly barred by limitation.
( 4 ) UNDER these circumstances, the decree of the trial court is modified to the extent that withholding of the increments by Orders dated 8/10/1987 and 3/11/1988 are invalid in law. In other respects, the claims are barred by limitation.
( 5 ) THE appeal is allowed accordingly. No costs.
