The main legal point established in the judgment is that the suit seeking a declaration that an order was illegal can be barred by limitation as per the provisions of the Limitation Act.

JUDGMENT :

K. Ramaswamy, J.

1. Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3. Though notice was sent on 18-2-1994, till date, neither acknowledgement has been received nor unserved cover has been received. Under these circumstances, notice must be deemed to have been served on the respondent. This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the Punjab & Haryana High Court made on 4-11-1992 in (sic) 2217 of 1991.

4. After conducting departmental enquiry, by proceedings dated 10-12-1981, two increments with cumulative effect were stopped. The suit was filed on 15-1-1988. Article 58 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act 21 of 1963 prescribes three years? limitation from the date of the order, to seek a declaration that the impugned order was illegal and did not bind him. The residuary provision is Article 113 also equally prescribes the limitation of three years. The limitation starts running from the date of passing of the order withholding increments. On expiry of three years from that date, the limitation expires by the efflux of time. Consequently, the suit gets barred by limitation. Section 3 of the Limitation Act directs the court to take notice of the bar of limitation before proceeding further. This legal position was set at rest by the judgment of this Court in State of Punjab v. Gurdev Singh, (1991) 4 SCC 1 . The suit of the respondent is barred by limitation.

5. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the suit stands dismissed, but in the circumstances, without costs.