STATE OF HARYANA Vs. JAI PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit of the plaintiff-respondent services was illegal was decree by the defendant-appellant in terminating learned trial Court. The appeal filed by the State of Haryana has been dismissed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Karnal. Hence this appeal.

(2.) The solitary contention raised by Mr. Khetarpal, learned counsel for the appellant is that the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent in the year 1990 against the order dated Dec. 31, 1982 as wholly barred by limitation. He consequently submits that the courts below have erred in accepting his claim. Mr. Yadav learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent submits that the order of termination had not been communicated. He had submitted representations. It is only when the respondent learnt of the order of termination that he filed the suit.

(3.) The onus of proving that the suit was time barred was on the appellant. Mr. Khetarpal is not in a position to refer to any evidence on the record to show that the order of termination had been communicated. In fact, he submits that even the copy of the order of termination is not with him. In this situation, the contention that the suit was barred by limitation cannot be accepted.