R.S.A NO.1128 OF 1987

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

R.S.A NO.1128 OF 1987

Date of Decision 29.10.2009

Gian Chand

........ Appellant

Versus

State of Haryana and another

........ Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR

Present:

None for the appellant.

Mr.Sanjeev Kaushik, Additional Advocate General,

Haryana.

M.M.KUMAR, J.

This is the plaintiff's appeal filed under Section 100 of the

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the judgment and decree dated

10.9.1986, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ambala,

reversing the view taken by the trial Court. The trial Court had decreed the

suit of the plaintiff-appellant in his favour but the learned Additional District

Judge, dismissed the suit by recording a finding that it was time barred.

The learned Additional District Judge had dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-

appellant in which he had claimed that the order dated 26.4.1982, passed

by the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Ambala, withholding his

efficiency bar at the stage of Rs.80/- in the scale of Rs.70-2-80/3-95 with

effect from 1.2.1981, was illegal, void, arbitrary and against the relevant

mandatory provisions of Punjab Civil Services Rules (as applicable to

Haryana) and the Constitution. The consequential relief claimed by the

plaintiff-appellant was also declined.

R.S.A NO.1128 OF 1987

-2-

The substantial question of law which would arise for

determination of this Court is 'Whether the suit is time barred and as such

not maintainable'.

The brief facts of the case necessary for disposal of the

instant controversy are that that the plaintiff-appellant joined his service as

peon in the Excise and Taxation Department at Ambala Cantonment

somewhere in the year 1964. He was to cross efficiency bar with effect

from 5.2.1975. He never made any representation that he suffered

adverse remarks doubting his integrity in the year 1974-75 and he was not

allowed to cross efficiency bar vide order dated 30.1.1976 with effect from

5.2.1975 because he did not have 50% good reports with no adverse

remarks regarding his honesty and integrity preceding the last 10 years of

passing of the order. As per the requirement of Note-3 below Rule 4.8

Volume-I Part-I of the Punjab Civil Service Rules (applicable to Haryana) a

review is required to be held of the old order for re-determining of the

eligibility or otherwise of an employee to cross efficiency bar with effect

from 1.2.1981. The learned Appellate Court, categorically recorded the

finding that the suit was time barred which is discernible from para No.7 of

the impugned judgment which reads thus:

“The suit of the plaintiff is also time barred as infact the plaintiff

was held up at his efficiency bar with effect from 5.2.1975 vide

order dated 30.11.1976 passed by the competent authority

and conveyed vide memo dated 30.11.1977. Thereafter the

matter was reviewed from time to time in accordance with the

provision of note 3, rule 4.8 of Punjab Civil Services Rules

Vol.I, Parte I. There is a force in the contention of the learned

Government Pleader that the impugned order is infact an order

passed on renewal of old orders to consider the suitability or

otherwise of the plaintiff to cross efficiency bar with effect from

R.S.A NO.1128 OF 1987

-3-

1.2.1981. thus the observations of the learned Sub Judge that

the impugned is an independent order and gives rise to an

independent cause of action is wrong interpretation of law.

The learned Sub Judge himself in his discussion over issue

No.1 has referred to the other orders on the basis of which the

impugned order was passed.”

It has come on record that the suit was filed on 29.3.1984,

which was directed against the order dated 30.11.1976, withholding the

crossing of efficiency bar of the plaintiff-appellant with effect from 1.2.1975.

The cause of action had arisen to the plaintiff-appellant on 30.11.1976. At

best he could have filed the