Judgment

K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J.:- These appeals against the decision of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana raise a short issue concerning limitation governing the suit for declaration by a dismissed employee that he continues to be in service since his dismissal was void and inoperative. The High Court has observed that if the dismissal of the employee is illegal, void or inoperative being in contravention of the mandatory provisions of any rules or conditions of service, there is no limitation to bring a suit for declaration that the employee continues to be in service.

2. The facts giving rise to these appeals, as found by the Courts below, may be summarised as follows:

CA No. 1852/89. The respondent in this appeal was appointed as an ad hoc subinspector in the District Food and Supply Department of Punjab State. He absented himself from duty with effect from 29 September, 1975. On 27 January, 1977, his services were terminated. On 18 April, 1984, he instituted the suit for declaration that the termination order was against the principles of natural justice, terms and conditions of employment, void and inoperative and he continues to be in service. The State resisted the suit contending, inter alia, that the plaintiffs services were terminated in accordance with the terms and conditions of his ad hoc appointment and the suit was barred by time. The trial Court accepted the plea of limitation and dismissed the suit, but on appeal the Additional District Judge, Jullundhar decreed the suit. He observed that the termination order though simpliciter in nature was passed as a measure of punishment. The plaintiffs services were terminated for unauthorised absence without an enquiry and he should have been given an opportunity to explain his conduct by holding proper enquiry. On the plea of limitation, learned Additional District Judge held that no limitation is prescribed for challenging an illegal order. Since the order of termination was bad, the suit was not barred by time. In the second appeal preferred by the State the High Court agreed with the view following its earlier decisions.

CA No. 4772/82. The respondent in this appeal was a Railway Police Constable. He was appointed on 14 November, 1977. On 15 -March, 1979, he was discharged from service for some misconduct. On 15 June, 1979, his appeal was rejected by AIG, Railway, Patiala, Punjab. On 30 November, 1979, his revision petition was dismissed by the Inspector General of Police, Punjab. On 12 Feb., 1985 he brought a suit seeking declaration that the order discharging him from service and confirmed in the appeal and revision, was illegal, ultra vires, unconstitutional and against the principles of natural justice and he continues to be in service as constable. The trial Court dismissed the suit. The appeal preferred by the plaintiff was accepted by the Additional District Judge who decreed the suit as prayed for. He has inter alia stated that the plaintiff was discharged from service in contravention of the mandatory provisions of the rules and as such it has no legal effect. There is no period of limitation for instituting the suit for declaration that such a dismissal order is not binding upon the plaintiff. While affirming that principle, the High Court dismissed the second appeal in limine.

3. These are not the only cases in which the Punjab and Haryana High Court has taken the view that there is no limitation for instituting the suit for declaration by a dismissed or discharged employee on the ground that the dismissal or discharge was void or inoperative. The High Court has repeatedly held that if the dismissal, discharge or termination of services of an employee is illegal, unconstitutional or against the principles of natural justice, the employee can approach the Court at any time seeking declaration that he remains in service. The suit for such reliefs is not governed by any of the provisions of the Limitation Act [See: State of Punjab v. Ajit Singh (1988) 1 Serv