KAUR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed claiming financial benefits by setting aside three adverse orders passed against the petitioner i.e the impugned order dated on 20th May, 1981 stopping two annual increments with cumulative effect and the impugned orders dated 13th August, 1984 and 13th March, 1989 withholding two and one annual increments with temporary effect, respectively. The petitioner who has retired from service as a Conductor in the year 2007 carries grouse against these orders and complains that recoveries have been made from his salary in an illegal manner, without considering the legal position in this regard. He places reliance on a decision of this Court rendered in CWP No.2964 of 2010 (Raghbir Singh vs. State of Punjab and others) decided on 22nd February, 2010 where this Court directed refund of an amount of Rs.16133/- recovered from Raghbir Singh on account of over-payment of leave salary. The learned Single Judge applied the then prevailing law in the Full Bench judgment in Budh Ram and others vs. State of Haryana and others, 2009 2 ILR(P&H) 445 .

(2.) The present is not a case of over-payment or a mistake of fact and law committed by the State Government leading to loss of pay and allowances. The present is a case where the prayers are for setting aside the aforesaid three impugned orders passed over 16 to 33 years ago, one of which is a major penalty and consequently to grant the monetary benefits flowing there from with cascading effect until re-fixation of pay and pensionary benefits. The legal position has somewhat changed after the judgment rendered by the Full Bench in Budh Ram, supra. Some years after the progenitor judgment of the Full Bench was delivered, the Supreme Court has recently in State of Uttar Pradesh and others vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava and others, 2015 1 SCC 347 have clarified and refined the law holding that though similarly situated persons should be treated alike, but there are exceptions to this rule. The Supreme Court carved those out as follows:-

(3.) In the present case, there are no similarly situated persons to measure unequal treatment as no precedent has been cited where the State Government has granted monetary benefits to those conductors who faced adverse disciplinary orders withholding annual increments with cumulative effect or on temporary basis and that too relief granted in the face of enormous with delay and laches in approaching the administrator in the first instance and then court. It is well established that even void orders imposing penalties and punishments on delinquent employees for misconduct cannot be ignored as inoperative, void or viodable. Suitable challenge has to be brought in a court of law within the period prescribed in the residuary Art. 113 in the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963, which is three years from the date the cause of action accrues. Right to sue extinguishes thereafter, the Supreme Court explaining in these terms "The words "right to sue" ordinarily mean the right to seek relief by means of legal proceedings. Generally, the right to sue accrues only when the cause of action arises, that is, the right to prosecute to obtain relief by legal means". For this proposition of law on the subject reference be had to Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Gurdev Singh, 1991 AIR(SC) 2219 The case arose out of a suit against a dismissal order but the principles will apply to jurisdiction provided by Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Two Division Benches of this Court taking a contrary view were overruled i.e.: State of Punjab v. Ajit Singh, 1988 1 SLR 96 and State of Punjab v. Ram Singh, 1986 3 SLR 379 The Supreme Court quoted from Smith v. East. Elloe Rural District Council, 1956 AC 736 , the words of Lord Radcliffe observing: