Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Hy vs Amrit Parkash on 3 April, 2024
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:044861
RSA-2156-1998 (O&M) -1- 2024:PHHC:044861
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
210 RSA-2156-1998 (O&M)
Date of Decision :03.04.2024
State of Haryana and another ...Appellants
Versus
Amrit Parkash Singh ....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Ms. Vibha Tewari, AAG, Haryana for appellant-State.
Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate and
Mr. Sukhdev Singh, Advocate for the respondent.
***
Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)
1. In the present regular second appeal, challenge is to the
judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court dated 18.10.1996 by
which, judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 16.08.1993 was set aside
and the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff was allowed qua order dated
21.09.1987 compulsorily retiring the respondent-plaintiff from service.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant-State submits that as per the
judgment and decree of the trial Court, suit was beyond limitation though,
on merits claim of the respondent-plaintiff was held to be valid but on the
ground of limitation the suit was dismissed.
2. Said decree and judgment of the trial Court was challenged by
the respondent-plaintiff before the lower Appellate Court and the lower
Appellate Court vide order dated 18.10.1996 had allowed the suit holding
that the same was within limitation provided. The said judgment and decree
of the lower Appellate Court is under challenge in the present regular second
1 of 2
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:044861
RSA-2156-1998 (O&M) -2- 2024:PHHC:044861
appeal.
3. It may be noticed that in the present appeal, though, notice of
motion was issued but no interim order was passed meaning thereby order
passed by the lower Appellate Court dated 18.10.1996 must have been
complied with.
4. Even otherwise, on merits, the respondent-plaintiff was given a
notice for compulsorily retirement on 24.06.1987, which was to be come
into effect on 21.09.1987 and the suit was filed by the respondent-plaintiff
challenging the compulsory retirement on 11.09.1990 hence, from date of
compulsory retirement, the suit was filed within limitation as held by the
Lower appellate Court.
5. Nothing has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the
appellant-State that the said finding of the lower Appellate Court is perverse
to any evidence on record. Once the respondent-plaintiff was retired on
21.09.1987 and suit was filed on 11.09.1990, it cannot be said that the suit
was beyond limitation.
6. Keeping in view the above as no perversity has been pointed
out by the appellant-State in the order passed by the Lower Appellate Court,
no ground for interference by this Court is made out and the present regular
second appeal is dismissed.
7. Civil miscellaneous application pending, if any, is also disposed
of
April 03, 2024 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
aarti JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
2 of 2
