Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagir Singh vs Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd & Ors on 8 August, 2024
Author: Suvir Sehgal
Bench: Suvir Sehgal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:102655
RSA-3842-2015
-1-
108
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA-3842-2015
Date of decision:-08.08.2024
Jagir Singh
...Appellant
Versus
Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and others
...Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL
Present : Mr.Fateh Singh Dilla, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr.Pavit Singh Mattewal, Advocate and
Mr.Saurav Dhir, Advocate
for the respondents.
****
SUVIR SEHGAL, J.(ORAL)
1. Plaintiff - appellant is in second appeal before this Court
challenging the concurrent finding recorded by the Courts below.
2. Pleaded case of the plaintiff - appellant is that he joined the
defendants as a Lineman on 10.07.1969 and was promoted as JE-II in
the month of June, 1998. During his service tenure some of his juniors
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:102655
RSA-3842-2015
were promoted as JE-I, but the plaintiff - appellant was ignored.
Plaintiff retired from service on 30.04.2004 on attaining the age of
superannuation. Claiming that the defendants have granted four step-up
increments to diploma holders, when they reached the grade of
Rs.9,100/-, but the same benefit was not extended to the plaintiff and
that he had not been given the 23 years promotional scale, despite the
fact that he had crossed the age of 58, he filed a suit for declaration and
mandatory injunction.
3. Upon being served, defendants No.1 and 2 filed a joint
written statement contesting the suit on the ground that it is hopelessly
barred by time. The service particulars of the plaintiff were admitted,
however, it was denied that any junior to the plaintiff was ever promoted
as JE-I. Denying the claim of the plaintiff, the defendants sought
dismissal of the suit. Issues were framed on the basis of the pleadings of
the parties, who led evidence in support of their case. After hearing
them, Trial Court by judgment and decree dated 19.10.2013 dismissed
the suit. Plaintiff remained unsuccessful in the first appeal, which was
rejected by judgment dated 21.08.2014 passed by learned Additional
District Judge, Amritsar, resulting in the filing of the present appeal.
4. Counsel for the appellant has argued that failure to grant the
promotional scale to the appellant is a recurring cause of action and both
the courts below have erred in dismissing the suit as being barred by
limitation.
5. On the other hand, Mr. Mattewal, learned counsel for the
respondents while supporting the judgments and decrees under
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:102655
RSA-3842-2015
challenge, has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court
in State of Punjab and another Versus Balkaran Singh (2006) 12 SCC
709 to contend that the suit for declaration was time barred as it was not
filed within a period of three years from the date the cause of action
accrued.
6. I have heard the counsel for the parties and considered their
respective submissions as well as examined the Trial Court record.
7. In Balkaran's case (supra), Supreme Court has held as
under:-
"15. We shall first deal with the first two suits relating to the
declaration that the plaintiffs therein are entitled to be placed in
the revised scale of pay of Rs.1200-1850. The suits filed are for
declaration that the order or endorsement dated 13.03.1980 was
illegal and void. The suits were filed more than 12 years after the
order fixing the revised scale of pay at Rs.940-1850. A suit for
declaration is governed by Article 58 of the Limitation Act and
the period is three years and the terminus au quo is "when the
right to sue first accrues". (emphasis supplied). Clearly, the right
to seek the relief of declaration that they are entitled to the
revised scale of pay of Rs.1200-1850, accrued to the plaintiffs on
13.03.1980, when the endorsement in that behalf was made by the
Director of Agricultural Services and the plaintiffs were denied
revised pay at Rs.1200-1850 and were paid only at Rs.940-1850.
It was not the mere making of an order, but an action that had
immediate impact on the right of the plaintiffs to recover a higher
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:102655
RSA-3842-2015
salary as per their claim. The cause of action thus clearly arose
for the first time. Thus the suit for declaration was clearly barred
by limitation going by Article 58 of the Limitation Act. The fact
that some other officer had been given a decree for the enhanced
revised scale, does not furnish the plaintiffs in the first two suits
with a fresh cause of action. It is well settled that the time does
not stop to run once it has started to run. Therefore, the reliance
placed on the decree in Civil Suit No.461 of 1991 had absolutely
no relevance on this question. Strictly speaking, Civil Suit No.461
of 1991 also ought not to have been decreed since that suit was
clearly barred by limitation, since the order sought to be
challenged in that suit of 1991 was also the order dated
13.03.1980. But in view of the decree passed therein, it is not for
us now to go into the correctness or otherwise of the decision
rendered therein. Suffice it to say that the said decision cannot
give the plaintiffs a fresh cause of action. The time started to run
when the right to sue first accrued to t he plaintiff and that first
accrual was clearly on 13.03.1980 and on expiry of 3 years
therefrom, the suit for declaration became barred."
8. The Supreme Court was dealing with a case of a revision of
pay scale and was of the view that a right accrued to the plaintiff on the
day the cause of action had arisen. In M.R. Gupta Versus Union of
India and others (1995) 5 SCC 628 Supreme Court observed that the
claim to be paid the correct salary computed on the basis of proper pay
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:102655
RSA-3842-2015
fixation, is a right which subsists during the entire service tenure and
can be exercised at the time of each payment of salary so long as the
employee is in service.
9. In the present case, as per the record, the plaintiff -
appellant was born on 04.04.1946 and he completed 50 years of age on
04.04.1996. Therefore, the cause of action arose to him in the year 1996.
However, he has filed the suit in 2010, which is clearly barred by time.
Plaintiff stood retired from service on 30.04.2004 and in case he had any
service dispute and was aggrieved that he has not been granted the
benefit of a higher grade during his service tenure, the suit should have
been filed within a period of three years from the date of attaining the
age of superannuation. However, the suit has been filed six years after
the date of retirement and is hopelessly barred by time. There is no
illegality or infirmity in the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts
below, which are affirmed.
10. Appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed.
11. Pending application, if any, is disposed of.
(SUVIR SEHGAL)
08.08.2024 JUDGE
Brij
Whether reasoned/speaking : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
5 of 5
