IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

RSA-172-1993 (O&M)

Date of decision: 23.12.2025

State of Haryana and others

...Appellants

Versus

Dalip Singh (deceased) through his wife Suman Khanna

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL

Present: Mr. Raj Partap Singh Brar, AAG, Haryana, for the appellants.

Mr. Arav Gupta, Advocate for the respondent.

****

VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)

1. Challenge in the present appeal is to the judgment dated 06.02.1992 vide which the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent was decreed and the plaintiff was held entitled to selection grade w.e.f. 13.04.1977. Challenge is also to the judgment and decree dated 02.09.1992 vide which the appeal filed by the present

appellants/defendants was dismissed by the First Appellate Court.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS:-

2. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that in the present case, the suit filed by the plaintiff was barred by limitation. It is submitted that the suit had been instituted on 09.03.1990 whereas the

cause of action for filing the suit had arisen to the plaintiff on 18.12.1979 when the Director Health Services Haryana, vide office letter No.8/44-E- III-79 14580-680 dated 18.12.1979, had granted the selection grade to Pharmacist from 13.04.1977. It is submitted that it is the own case of the plaintiff that his juniors had been granted the said benefit and the same had not been granted to the plaintiff-respondent and thus, the cause of action to the plaintiff-respondent had arisen on 18.12.1979 whereas the suit had been filed after a delay of more than 10 years and the limitation period for filing the suit was three years and thus, the suit deserves to be dismissed on the said ground alone. It is submitted that although, the issue of limitation was not pressed before the trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court but it is a matter of settled law that even in case issue of limitation is not pressed, then also, Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963 casts a duty on the Court to dismiss the suit which is barred by limitation. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon the judgment of the Orissa High Court in the case of State of Orissa Vs. Adikanda Patra, reported as 1999 AIR (Orissa) 113. It is argued that thus, finding on issue No.6 be set aside and the suit of the plaintiff-

respondent be dismissed as the same is barred by limitation.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT:-

3. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has submitted that the judgments of the trial Court as well as First Appellate Court are in accordance with law and deserve to be upheld. It is submitted that respondent has a cast iron case on merits, inasmuch as, it is not in dispute that the entries which were adverse to the plaintiff and were never communicated to him, had been taken into consideration for non-grant of selection grade. It is submitted that it has been repeatedly held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that all ACRs are required to be communicated to the employee concerned and in case the same is not communicated, then, the said ACRs, more so, when the same are adverse, cannot be taken into consideration while rejecting the case and for non-grant of relief to which the respondent is entitled to. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Dev Dutt Vs. Union of India and others reported as 2008(8) SCC 725, Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar Vs. Union of India and others, reported as 2009(16) SCC 146, judgment dated 23.09.2022 passed in Civil Appeal No.2021 of 2022 titled as Union of India and others Vs. G.R. Meghwal as well as judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gurdial Singh Fijji Vs. The State of Punjab and others reported as 1979 (2) SCC 368

4. Learned counsel for the respondent has further submitted that the respondent had crossed the efficiency bar on 01.11.1976 and thus, earlier average ACR