Jasmer Singh vs P.R.T.C. Patiala
2023 Latest Caselaw 14925 P&H

                                                          Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:115383




RSA-2387 of 1992 (O&M)                 -1-           2023:PHHC:115383

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                     AT CHANDIGARH

                                                    RSA-2387 of 1992 (O&M)
                                                    Date of Order:02.09.2023

Jasmer Singh
                                                                      .Appellant
                                    Versus

Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala and others

                                                                  ..Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL

Present: Mr. Rahul Bansal, Advocate, for the appellant.

Mr. Aman Sharma, Advocate and Mr. Anupam Singla, Advocate for the respondents.

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J

1. The correctness of the findings of fact arrived at by the First

Appellate Court is assailed by the plaintiff in this second appeal.

2. The First Appellate Court has found that the appellant's two

increments were stopped with cumulative effect vide order dated

28.08.1984, whereas he filed the suit only on 23.01.1988. Thus, the First

Appellate Court has formed an opinion that the suit filed by the plaintiff was

beyond the prescribed period of limitation while relying upon the judgment

passed by the Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others vs. Gurdev

Singh and Ashok Kumar, AIR 1991 SC, 2219.

3. This Bench has heard the learned counsel representing the

parties at length and with their able assistance perused the paper book

4. The learned counsel representing the appellant contends that the

judgment passed in Gurdev's Singh case (supra) is with regard to the

1 of 2

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:115383

RSA-2387 of 1992 (O&M) -2- 2023:PHHC:115383

dismissal, whereas in the present case the appellant has a recurring cause of

action as his monthly salary is not increasing due to the non-payment of

increments.

5. This court has considered the submissions of the learned

counsel representing the parties.

6. It is not in dispute that an order punishing the appellant was

passed on 28.08.1984. Such order was required to be challenged within the

prescribed period of limitation. Article 58 read with Article 113 attached to

the Schedule of the Limitation Act, 1963 governs these kind of suits. The

third column of Article 58 of the Schedule provides that the time for filing

the suit would begun to run when the right to sue first accrues. Article 113

provides that the time would begun to run when the right to sue accrues. In

this case, the right to sue accrued on the date, the order imposing penalty

was communicated to the appellant. In such circumstances, the concept of

recurring cause of action as envisaged in Section 22 of the Limitation Act,

1963 cannot be invoked.

7. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and discussion, no ground

to interfere is made out.

8. Dismissed, accordingly.

9. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also

disposed of.

September 02, 2023                                    (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
nt                                                         JUDGE


Whether speaking/reasoned                 :YES/NO
Whether reportable                        :YES/NO

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:115383

2 of 2