1. Departmental enquiry resulting in withholding of increments — Suit for declaration of order as illegal — Issue of limitation under Limitation Act. (Para 4 )
Back
Next 
1996 Supreme(SC) 2265
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy and G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.
State of Punjab - Appellant
Versus
Rajinder Singh - Respondent
Civil Appeal No. ...... of 1996 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 2944 of 1994)
Decided On : 25-03-1996
Important Points
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.
Subject
Civil Law - Limitation Act
Act Referred
LIMITATION ACT: Art.3, Art.58
Headnote
Limitation Act - Barred by Limitation - The court held that the suit was barred by limitation as per the provisions of the Limitation Act. The legal position on limitation was clarified by the judgment in State of Punjab v. Gurdev Singh, (1991) 4 SCC 1.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent's increments were stopped by a departmental enquiry in 1981. The suit seeking a declaration that the order was illegal was filed in 1988, beyond the three-year limitation period.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suit was barred by limitation as per the provisions of the Limitation Act.
Issues: The main issue was whether the suit seeking a declaration that the order withholding increments was illegal was barred by limitation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the provisions of the Limitation Act and relied on the legal position clarified in the judgment of State of Punjab v. Gurdev Singh, (1991) 4 SCC 1 to conclude that the suit was indeed barred by limitation.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the suit was dismissed as it was barred by limitation.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Limitation for seeking declaration against an order withholding increments is three years from the date of the order under Articles 58 and 113 of the Limitation Act. (Para 4 )
3. A suit seeking a declaration that an order withholding increments is illegal is barred by limitation if filed beyond three years from the date of the order. (Para 4 )
4. Appeal allowed and suit dismissed without costs. (Para 5 )
5. What is the limitation period for challenging an order withholding increments?
The limitation period is three years from the date of the order, as prescribed under Article 58 and the residuary provision Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963. (Para 4 )
6. When does the limitation period begin to run for a suit challenging an order withholding increments?
The limitation period starts running from the date of passing the order withholding the increments. (Para 4 )
7. What is the court's duty regarding the bar of limitation under Section 3 of the Limitation Act?
Section 3 of the Limitation Act directs the court to take notice of the bar of limitation before proceeding further with the case. (Para 4 )
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.
