DALIP SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present appeal is to the impugned judgment and decree, whereby the suit of the appellant -plaintiff for declaration to the effect that plaintiff is the Chowkidar of the Village Kathiala, Tehsil Dera Baba Nanak and is entitled to receive his salary and other emoluments which have been illegally detained by the defendants since April, 1996 alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. has been dismissed. Mr. Gagandeep Singh Sirphikhi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant submits that the aforementioned suit was filed, on the premise, that appellant -plaintiff was appointed as Chowkidar in the year 1993 and his father was also serving as chowkidar. He was denied the salary since 1996 as a result of which the appellant approached the officials of the defendant and, thereafter was constrained to sent legal notice dated 01.06.2000 under Sec. 80 of Code of Civil Procedure. He further submits that respondent -defendant came out with the plea in the written statement that services of the appellant -plaintiff had been terminated vide termination order dated 27.03.1996 (Ex. D1).

(2.) He further submits that aforementioned order was neither served, much less, no show cause notice or any enquiry proceedings were initiated, much less, served and, therefore there has been a blatant violation of principles of natural justice. This fact has totally been ignored by the Courts below. He further submits that the appellant -plaintiff had been discharging the duty of Chowkidar even without salary and this fact is admitted by Harjinder Singh, Tehsildar -DW1, who unequivocally, admitted that appellant -Dalip Singh, while working as Chowkidar, received the copy of summons dated 18.11.2005 issued by SDM, DBN in some matter and thus submits that following substantial questions of law arises for determination by this Court: - - -

(3.) Mr. Rajesh Mehta, Addl. A.G. Punjab submits that once the defendant No. 1 pleaded the factum of passing out of the termination order dated 27.03.1996, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to seek declaration by seeking amendment of the plaint, but no such application has been moved, therefore, Courts below have rightly dismissed the suit. He further submits that suit is ex facie was time barred as it has been filed in 2000 for claiming the relief/salary w.e.f. April 1996. Thus, no substantial questions of law arises for adjudication.