Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Punjab vs Baljinder Singh on 19 January, 2024
Author: Suvir Sehgal
Bench: Suvir Sehgal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:007505
2024:PHHC:007505
RSA-282-1993 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
104 RSA-282-1993
Date of decision:19.01.2024
STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. ... APPELLANTS
VS.
BALJINDER SINGH ... RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL
Present: Mr. Vikas Arora, AAG, Punjab,
for the appellants.
Mr. Kuljinder Singh Billing, Advocate for
Mr. Satinder Pal Singh Dhaliwal, Advocate
for the respondent.
***
SUVIR SEHGAL J. (ORAL)
1. State-defendant is in the instant second appeal before this
Court challenging the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts
below.
2. Brief facts may be noticed.
3. Plaintiff-respondent, who was working as a Conductor with
the Punjab Roadways, Amritsar-1, filed a suit for declaration to the effect
that orders dated 4.2.83, 4.2.83, 11.5.83, 11.5.83, 24.11.83, 23.10.86,
23.10.86, 30.3.87, 14.3.84, 10.4.89, 17.4.89, 2.2.89 and 28.3.85
imposing penalties of stoppage of increments with/without cumulative
effect have been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice.
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:007505
2024:PHHC:007505
RSA-282-1993 -2-
4. Upon being served, State-defendant filed a written statement
taking up various pleas and submitted that the suit is barred by time. On
the basis of the pleadings, issues were framed and after parties lead
evidence, Trial Court by judgment and decree dated 12.08.1991 held that
all the orders except orders dated 14.3.84, 10.4.89 and 17.4.89 are
illegal, null and void and are set aside. Consequential relief was also
granted to the plaintiff-respondent.
5. Aggrieved, State-defendant filed the first appeal, which was
partly accepted and the lower appellate court upheld the decree passed
by the Trial Court, whereby it had declared four orders dated 23.10.86,
23.10.86, 30.3.87 and 2.2.89 as illegal. State is before this Court
challenging the four above-said orders.
6. Counsel for the parties have been heard.
7. It is an admitted position that the plaintiff-respondent had filed
a suit on 01.3.1990 and the learned First Appellate Court while partly
accepting the appeal of the State held that the period of limitation for
challenging the orders is 03 years and 02 months. Except for the four
orders mentioned above, it was found that all other orders were beyond
the period of limitation. Applying the same analogy, it is evident that
even two orders passed on 23.10.86 are beyond the period of limitation,
which will start from 1.1.87. Both these orders have been passed prior
thereto.
8. In view of the above, the appeal deserves to be partly accepted.
9. Accordingly, while partly accepting the appeal, judgment and
decree passed by the First Appellate Court is modified to the extent that
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:007505
2024:PHHC:007505
RSA-282-1993 -3-
except for orders dated 30.3.87 and 2.2.89, challenge to all the other
orders by the plaintiff-respondent is beyond the prescribed period of
limitation.
10. Appeal is disposed of.
11. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
19.01.2024 (SUVIR SEHGAL)
sheetal JUDGE
Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:007505
3 of 3
