STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. KULBIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of the High court of punjab and Haryana dated 23/3/1990 allowing the Civil Revision No. 1182 of 1988 filed by the respondent against the order dated 18/1/1988 passed by the Sub-Judge, First Class, Jalandhar in proceedings relating to execution of decree dated 9/4/1987.

(2.) The facts briefly stated are as follows.

(3.) The respondent was employed as Conductor in the Punjab Roadways, jalandhar. His services were terminated by order dated 17/11/1978 on the ground of his absence from duty with effect from 22/6/1975. On 6/8/1986 the respondent filed a suit for declaration that the order of termination of his services dated 17/11/1978 was illegal and invalid and was passed in contravention of the provisions of Punjab Civil Service Rules. The said suit was decreed by the Sub-Judge, First Class, Jalandhar and it was declared that the order of termination dated 17/11/1978 was null and void. Thereafter, the respondent filed an execution application, which has given rise to this appeal wherein he has claimed a sum of Rs. 1,20,395. 00 on account of arrears of salary for the period from 22/6/1975 onwards. In these execution proceedings the appellants filed an objection that the respondent is only entitled to arrears of salary for the period of 38 months prior to the date of the filing of the suit and not for the entire period from the date of the order of termination. Accepting the said objection the executing court passed the order dated 18/1/1988 directing the appellants to pay the arrears of salary for three years and two months prior to the filing of the suit and for the subsequent period. The respondent filed a revision against the said order of the executing court which has been allowed by the High court by the impugned judgment. The high court has held that a distinction has to be made between an order of termination which is illegal and an order which is null and void and that in cases where the order of termination is null and void no question of limitation arises and, therefore, the respondent is entitled to payment of salary for the entire period from the date of the order and the executing court could not confine the payment of arrears for the period of 38 months prior to the date of filing of the suit.