A suit for declaration concerning service seniority or promotion must be filed within three years of the initial cause of action. Non-statutory representations do not extend the period of limitation, and such litigation is unsustainable without impleading the affected junior party.

(210)

****

VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)

1. Challenge in the present appeal is to the judgment and decree dated 08.01.1997 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Bathinda, vide which the suit of the plaintiff/present appellant (now being represented through his LR) for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff be deemed to have been promoted as Tehsildar w.e.f. 08.01.1982 and for further relief, was dismissed. Challenge is also to the judgment dated 16.02.2000 passed by the Additional District Judge, Bathinda, vide which the appeal filed by the legal representative of the plaintiff, was dismissed.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

2. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in the present case, the appellant was appointed as B-Class Naib Tehsildar in the Ferozepur Division, vide order dated 13.06.1980 (Ex.P3) and that thereafter vide order dated 22.06.1982, under some misconception, the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, had de-enlisted all the B-Class Naib Tehsildar candidates, including the plaintiff. It is further submitted that the plaintiff along with other persons being aggrieved with the said decision had challenged the same before the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court by filing writ petitions and during the pendency of the said writ petitions, the State of Punjab vide order dated 14.07.1986 had directed the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division to withdraw the order dated 22.06.1982 with respect to de-enlisting of Naib Tehsildar candidates and accordingly, all the writ petitions were disposed of as having become infructuous and vide order dated 11.09.1986, candidature of the plaintiff along with other persons was ordered to be revived w.e.f. 13.06.1980. It is argued that thereafter, vide a communication dated 17.03.1987 (Ex.P9), the plaintiff was informed about the finalization of the seniority list of Naib Tehsildar.

3. It is submitted that however, during the interregnum, one Ajmer Singh, Naib Tehsildar, who was junior to the plaintiff, was promoted as Tehsildar on 08.01.1982 and the plaintiff vide representation dated 07.02.1989 (Ex.P12) had prayed that the plaintiff be granted seniority from the date his junior Ajmer Singh was promoted. It is further submitted that on 09.04.1992 (Ex.P13), the plaintiff received a rejection order dated 20.06.1989 and after the same, the present suit was filed on 23.02.1993. It is argued that the trial Court as well as the 1st Appellate Court had dismissed the suit of the plaintiff solely on the ground that the suit is barred by limitation and that the limitation period for filing the suit for declaration under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is three years from the date when the right to sue accrues. It is further argued that the right to sue accrued to the plaintiff only when he learnt about the rejection of his representation dated 07.02.1989 on 09.04.1992 when he received the letter (Ex.P13). It is submitted that since the suit was filed within a period of three years from the date of the said rejection, thus, it cannot be said that the suit was barred by limitation. It is further submitted that since other issues were primarily held in favour of the plaintiff, thus, the rejection of the suit of the plaintiff on the ground of limitation was illegal and against law and deserves to be set aside and the suit of the plaintiff deserves to be decreed.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

4. Learned counsel for the respondents-State, on the other hand, has submitted that the suit of the plaintiff had been rightly dismissed and even the appeal filed by the legal representative of the plaintiff had also been rightly dismissed. It