1. Termination of service — Suit for declaration that termination was contrary to law — Limitation period under Article 58, Limitation Act, 1963. (Para 3 )
Back
Next 
1996 Supreme(SC) 2336
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy And G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and others - Appellants
Versus
Nand Lal - Respondent
Civil Appeal No... of 1996, Arising out of SLP (C) No. 15993 of 1995
Decided On : 25-03-1996
Important Points
The right to sue for a declaration that the termination of services is contrary to law arises from the date of termination, and the suit must be filed within the limitation period prescribed under the Limitation Act.
Subject
Civil Law - Employment Law
Act Referred
LIMITATION ACT: Art.58
Headnote
Limitation Act - Termination of Services - Barred by Limitation
Fact of the Case:
The respondent's service was terminated after an enquiry, and the respondent filed a suit challenging the termination after the limitation period of three years had expired.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suit filed by the respondent was clearly barred by limitation as it was filed after the expiration of the three-year limitation period prescribed under Article 58 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963.
Issues: The main issue was whether the suit challenging the termination of services was filed within the limitation period prescribed under the Limitation Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The right to sue for a declaration that the termination of services is contrary to law arises from the date of termination, and the limitation period of three years begins to run from that date. The suit filed after the expiration of the limitation period is barred by limitation.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the suit filed by the respondent was dismissed as it was clearly barred by limitation. No costs were awarded.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the suit challenging the termination of service was filed within the prescribed limitation period under the Limitation Act, 1963. (Para 3 )
3. The right to sue for declaration of wrongful termination arises on the date of termination, and the limitation period begins to run from that date. (Para 3 )
4. Under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the three-year limitation period for a declaration regarding service termination begins from the date of termination. (Para 3 )
5. Appeal allowed and the suit dismissed as being barred by limitation. (Para 4 )
6. When does the limitation period begin for a suit seeking a declaration that service termination is contrary to law?
Under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the three-year limitation period begins to run from the date of termination, as the right to sue arises on that date. (Para 3 )
7. What is the prescribed limitation period for obtaining a declaration that the termination of service is contrary to law?
The prescribed limitation period is three years under Article 58 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963. (Para 3 )
ORDER :
K. Ramaswamy, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
3. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and order of the High Court of Rajasthan made on 7-4-1995 in SB Civil Second Appeal No. 359 of 1994. Admittedly, the service of the respondent was terminated, after an enquiry by proceedings dated 28-9-1979. The respondent had filed the suit on 27-5-1989. Under Article 58 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963, three years limitation is prescribed to obtain a declaration that termination of his services is contrary to law. The right to sue arises from the date of termination. The limitation of 3 years begins to run from the said date. The right to a declaration that his service was wrongfully terminated had arisen on 28-9-1979 and continued to exist till it expired by the efflux of time unless its running is interrupted by an order of a competent court. He did not challenge the order within 3 years from the said date. Consequently, the suit became barred by limitation on the expiry of 3 years from 29-9-1979. As a result, the suit filed on 27-5-1989 is clearly barred by limitation.
4. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The suit stands dismissed.
5. No costs.
Appeal allowed.
