STATE OF HARYANA Vs. BHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By an order dated 27.10.1986 passed by the General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Rohtak one increment of the plaintiff-respondent with cumulative effect was withheld as a measure of punishment. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration on 9.3.1991 challenging the order of punishment on the ground that it was null and void and did not effect the rights of the plaintiff. The suit was contested by the State of Haryana and inter alia it was pleaded that the suit of the plaintiff was barred by time. The order was also sought to be justified on merits. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :-

(2.) Having heard counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the appeal deserves to succeed. Even if one were to assume that the order dated 27.10.1986 was null and void, the plaintiff had to approach the Court for a declaration to have it set aside and this could be done only if the suit had been filed within the prescribed period of limitation. It is not open to the plaintiff to ignore such an order without approaching the court. It has been held by the Apex Court in State of Punjab and others v. Gurdev Singh, Ashok Kumar, 1991 AIR(SC) 221 that a suit for declaration that an order passed against the plaintiff is wrongful, illegal or ultra vires is governed by Article 113 of the Limitation Act whereunder the period of limitation prescribed is three years from the date of the order. In the instant case, the impugned order whereby one increment of the plaintiff was withheld with cumulative effect was passed on 27.10.1986 and the suit for getting this order declared invalid was instituted on 9.3.1991. The suit having been filed beyond the period of three years was barred by time, and the trial court was right in deciding issue 5 against the plaintiff and in favour of the State. The approach of the lower Appellate Court was not correct in the matter and I have no hesitation in reversing the finding recorded by it under issue 5.