GURSHARAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner retired from service on March 31, 2012 as a Sub Divisional Officer in the Irrigation Department. It is his case that in June 1988 while he was posted at Jalandhar Drainage Circle as Junior Engineer he was transferred to Ranjit Sagar Dam, Shahpur Kandi. He says that he was not given the relieving slip to enable him to join at the new place of posting and this position remained for 8 years, i.e., from July 01, 1988 to September 29, 1997 with a break of 5 days in 1988. A departmental inquiry was initiated against him in which he states that he was exonerated. On November 30, 2000 an order was passed which regularized his period absence/leave denying him pay and service benefits for the aforesaid period. After the petitioner retired from service he filed CWP No. 22030 of 2013 in this Court in October 2013 which was disposed of ex parte respondents by order dated 23rd October 2013 [disposed of as withdrawn as not maintainable at this stage; as recorded in the order]. In the petition he challenged the order imposing minor punishment of stoppage of one increment without future effect and prayed for a direction to the competent authority to sanction leave of the kind due from 1988 to 1997. The Court found the order to be appealable under Rule 16 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970. Faced with this situation he sought permission to withdraw his case to avail the alternative remedy. He preferred an appeal on November 11, 2013 to the Principal Secretary, Irrigation Department, Punjab. The appeal remained pending which inaction was impugned by filing CWP No. 14051 of 2014. This Court by an ex parte order disposed of the writ petition on July 22, 2014 on the statement of the counsel that he would be satisfied in case respondent No. 1 is directed to consider and decide the claim of the petitioner in appeal within a reasonable period. This Court expressed no opinion and directed the appellate authority for look into the matter, consider the grievance of the petitioner raised in the appeal and decide it at an early date within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. The period of three months had elapsed without decision. Thereafter, the appeal has been rejected by the Irrigation Minister, Punjab and the rejection of the appeal has been conveyed to the petitioner vide Office Memo dated September 22, 2014 that his case has been considered and rejected. The petitioner is in his third round of litigation in the present petition. He complains that the impugned order dated September 22, 2014 (P-5) has been passed in a "haphazard manner without application of mind and the same is non-speaking".

(2.) In the considered view of this Court, the cause of action accrued to the petitioner on November 30, 2000 when the impugned administrative order was passed declining monetary benefits for the period of absence from 1988 to 1997. He approached this Court for the first time after retirement in a writ petition which was disposed of as withdrawn with permission to avail the alternative remedy of appeal available to the petitioner. The order was passed in CWP No. 22030 of 2013 on October 23, 2013. In the second round of litigation he received the order dated July 22, 2014 with a direction to the appellate authority to decide the appeal but the Court expressed no opinion in the case. Both the aforesaid orders have resulted in the impugned order passed on September 22, 2014.

(3.) This Court is of opinion that the orders passed by this Court on October 23, 2013 and July 22, 2014 ex parte respondent-State cannot be read as postponing the cause of action which had accrued 13 years before the filing of the first writ petition or extending the period of limitation.