A claim for revised pay filed after the limitation period is barred, and a lower court's judgment allowing such a claim without proper consideration of facts is perverse.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)

In the present appeal, the challenge is to the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court dated 28.02.2014 by which the judgment and decree of the trial court dated 31.05.2012 has been set-aside and the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff has been allowed qua the revised pay scale from 01.01.1996 along with arrears and interest as well and the recovery done from the respondent-plaintiff from his pensionary benefits has been held to be bad.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants-defendants argues that the lower appellate court without appreciating the correct facts has allowed the appeal filed by the respondent-plaintiff so as to set-aside the well reasoned judgment of the trial court. Learned counsel for the appellants-defendants submits that the lower appellate court failed to consider that the suit, which was filed in the year 2009, was not at all maintainable seeking revised pay scale from 01.01.1996.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants-defendants further submits that with regard to the setting aside of the recovery, no order directing the recovery was challenged and the lower appellate court allowed the relief, on presumption that if any order has been passed or not, conveyed to the respondent-plaintiff or not, by which the recovery has been done, has set-aside the recovery from the respondent-plaintiff. Learned counsel for the appellants-defendants submits that the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court is perverse and is liable to be set-aside as the suit qua the relief claimed was time barred.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff, on the other hand, submits that the relief for which the respondent-plaintiff was entitled for has been granted by the lower appellate court by correctly appreciating the facts and the evidence, which has come on record and, hence, the same is liable to be upheld and the appeal filed by the appellants-defendants is liable to be dismissed.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance.

6. The first question which arises is whether with regard to the claim of the respondent-plaintiff seeking the revision of pay from 01.01.1996 by filing the civil suit in the year 2009 is maintainable or not. The said question has already been decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State of Punjab and others v. Balkaran Singh, 2006 (12) SCC 709. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India after examining various judgments, held that the limitation starts to run from the date, right to sue accrued qua the grant of a pay scale and the claim has to be raised within a period of limitation from the date right to accrued arose. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment is as under :-

"15. We shall first deal with the first two suits relating to the declaration that the plaintiffs therein are entitled to be placed in the revised scale of pay of Rs. 1200-1850/-. The suits filed are for declaration that the order or endorsement dated 13.3.1980 was illegal and void. The suits were filed more than 12 years after the order fixing the revised scale of pay at Rs. 940-1850/-. A suit for declaration is governed by Article 58 of the Limitation Act and the period is three years and the terminus au quo is "when the right to sue first accrues".(emphasis supplied) Clearly, the right to seek the relief of declaration that they are entitled to revised scale of pay of Rs. 1200-1850/-, accrued to the plaintiffs on 13.3.1980, when the endorsement in that behalf was made by the Director of Agricultural Services and the plaintiffs were denied revised pay at Rs. 1200-1850/- and were paid only at Rs. 940-1850/-. It was not the mere making of an order, but an action that had immediate impact on the right of the plaintiffs to recover a higher salary as per their claim. The cause of action thus clearly arose for the first time. Thus the suit for declaration was clearly barred by limitation going by Article 58 o