Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shanti Devi vs State Of Haryana on 12 March, 2024
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035002
RSA NO. 1897 OF 1993 1 2024:PHHC:035002
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
125 RSA NO. 1897 OF 1993
DATE OF DECISION: 12.03.2024
Shanti Devi ............Appellant
VERSUS
State of Haryana and another ..............Respondents
CORAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present Mr.R.K.Malik, Sr.Advocate
with Mr. Kartikey Chaudhary, Advocate,
for the appellant.
Mr. Harish Nain, AAG, Haryana.
***
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J (ORAL)
1. In the present appeal, the challenge is to the judgment of the lower
Appellate Court, by which, the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated
24.04.1991 has been set aside and the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff has been
dismissed.
2. The grievance which was raised by the appellant/plaintiff before the
Civil Court was that appellant/plaintiff was not allowed to cross Efficiency Bar so as
to grant the higher pay scale vide order dated 27.05.1977, 27.04.1978, 12.03.1980,
13.02.1980, 29.09.1982, 27.09.1983, 20.10.1987, 05.11.1987 and 30.11.1987.
3. The prayer of the appellant/plaintiff was to allow her to cross the
Efficiency Bar from the required date of attaining the eligibility i.e from the year
1976.
4. The Trial Court allowed the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff and held
that the non crossing of the Efficiency Bar in the case of the petitioner was based
upon the Annual Confidential Report, which was not communicated to the
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035002
RSA NO. 1897 OF 1993 2 2024:PHHC:035002
appellant/plaintiff hence, the same could not have been taken into account for any
purpose. Hence, the appellant/plaintiff was held entitled for the benefit of crossing of
the Efficiency Bar from the year 1976 along with all the consequential benefits.
5. Feeling aggrieved against the said decision, an appeal was preferred by
the respondent/State, which came to be allowed on 28.05.1993. The appellate Court
held that as, the order by which the appellant/plaintiff was not allowed to cross the
Efficiency Bar have not been challenged and the claim of the appellant/plaintiff for
allowing to clear the Efficiency Bar from the year 1976, the suit is time barred.
Hence, the Regular Second Appeal.
6. The learned senior counsel for the appellant submits that even if, the suit
which was filed in the year 1988 was time barred qua the orders starting from the year
1977 till 1983 but, the same should have been within limitation qua the orders dated
20.10.1987, 05.11.1987 and 30.11.1987 hence, the benefit should have been accorded
by the lower Appellate Court qua these orders.
7. It may be noticed that on being asked to show that the order dated
20.10.1987, 05.11.1987 and 30.11.1987 were ever challenged in the suit seeking the
declaration that those are bad in law, learned senior counsel concede the factum that
these orders were not under challenge. Once, these orders dated 20.10.1987,
05.11.1987 and 30.11.87 are not under challenge, any relief which has been declined
by the respondent in those orders, cannot be made the subject matter of the suit. Once
the orders which have been specifically passed declining the relief of crossing of the
Efficiency Bar in the year 1987 and those orders have not been impugned by filing the
suit, the legality of the said order cannot be gone into by saying that the said orders
are arbitrary or illegal or contrary to the settled principle of law.
7. As, the relief which was being claimed by the plaintiff is to grant him
the benefit of crossing of the Efficiency Bar from the year 1976, a suit filed in the
year 1988 and that too without challenging the order by which the said relief was
specifically declined, is to be treated as time barred with regard to the claim which
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035002
RSA NO. 1897 OF 1993 3 2024:PHHC:035002
was beyond three years as on the date of the filing of the suit. With regard to the
orders which were within the period of three years, rightly, no relief has been granted
as, the said orders have never been impugned by the appellant/plaintiff by filing the
civil suit.
8. Keeping in view the above, no perversity could be pointed by the
learned senior counsel in the judgment of the learned lower Appellate Court so as to
decline the relief as being claimed by the appellant/plaintiff.
9. Dismissed.
12.03.2024 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
mamta JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
3 of 3
