Back
NAMIT KUMAR
Jagdish Chand – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Mr. Namit Kumar, J.
Instant Regular Second Appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 30.08.1993 passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar, whereby appeal filed by the respondents against the judgment and decree dated 13.08.1991, partly decreeing the suit for declaration filed by the plaintiff-appellant, has been allowed and the suit of the plaintiff has been dismissed with costs.
2. For convenience sake, reference to parties is being made as per their status in the civil suit. The facts relevant for disposal of this regular second appeal are that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the order bearing Nos.1260/TA dated 22.02.1983, 751/TA dated 04.02.1983, 700/TA dated 04.02.1983, 4227/28/TA dated 27.07.1983, 4224-25/TA dated 27.07.1983, 4218-19/TA dated 27.07.1983, 6760-63/Steno dated 04.04.1985, 2778-80/TA dated 23.09.1986, 4609-11/TA dated 16.05.1987, 4605-07/TA dated 16.05.1987 and 5688-92/Steno dated 20.06.1988 passed against him, stopping annual increments with/without cumulative effect, be declared illegal, null and void and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff, and the arrears thereof and o
A suit challenging disciplinary orders is barred by limitation if not filed within three years, and due process must be followed by the employer in disciplinary actions.
Even void orders must be challenged within the prescribed limitation period; failure to do so results in the suit being barred.
The right to sue accrues when there is a clear and unequivocal threat to infringe the right by the defendant against whom the suit is instituted, and the limitation for filing suits to challenge the ....
A suit for declaration challenging a promotion is time-barred if filed beyond the statutory limitation period of three years, and promotions must adhere to qualifications and conduct.
The inquiry officer's failure to adhere to procedural rules invalidated the punishment order, necessitating remand for a fresh inquiry rather than reinstatement.
The court upheld the dismissal of the plaintiff as valid due to the lack of a timely appeal and the nature of the allegations against him, affirming the importance of adhering to statutory limitation....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
