The acceptance of a fresh appointment without protest can impact the entitlement for pensionary benefits and the limitation of a suit.

VINEY MITTAL and j. JJ.

1. The plaintiff has lost concurrently before the two courts below. He filed a suit for declaration claiming that he was in service of the state government as a Drawing Instructor with effect from July 6,1965 till august 14,1978. During the aforesaid period, he was promoted as a group instructor in the year 1978. He applied through proper channel and was so appointed on a post in Punjab State Electricity Board. The aforeaid appointment was with the prior permission of the State government. The plaintiff claimed that he was entitled for counting of his previous service with the State Government for the purpose of his pensionary benefits. Both the courts below have held that the plaintiff had been given fresh appointment in the year 1978 by the Punjab State electricity board and he had accepted the aforeaid appointment without any protest. It has also been held that the suit filed by the plaintiff on August 10,1995 was barred by limitaion. Consequently, the suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed and his appeal failed before the learned first appellate court.

2. Shri Ashwani Talwar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has argued that in the year 1982 instructions had been issued by the State Government to count past service of persons, such as the plaintiff,for the purpose of pensionary benefits. It has also been argued by the learned counsel that aforesaid instructions of the State government had been adopted by the Board in the year 1985. Consequenlty, the counsel has argued that the suit filed by the plaintiff was maintainable and should have been decreed.2. On the other hand, Shri S. C. Pathela, learned counsel appearing for the Board has argued tha the suit filed by the plaintiff was not only barred by limitation but even on merits,the plaitiff has no claim. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in the present appeal. The findings recorded by the two courts below are not shown to be erroneous in any manner. Even if the claim of the plaintiff is taken on the basis of the instructions which were adopted by the board in the year 1985, still the suit filed by him on August 10,1995 has to be held as barred by limitation. In any case, the plaintiff was offered a fresh appointment by the Board and he accepted the same without protest. Nothing has been shown that the findings recorded by the courts below suffer from any infirmity or are contray to the record. No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises in the present appeal. Dismissed.