STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. ANAND SARUP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE learned Advocate General has only raised the question of limitation in this appeal: and that is the only question that we are called upon to determine.

(2.) THE plaintiff, who was, at the relevant time, District Nazim in the erstwhile state of Patiala, was removed from service on the 20th of January, 1949. An enquiry against him was conducted by the Chief Justice of Patiala State and on the basis of the report of the Chief Justice, the order of removal was passed. It is common ground that no show-cause notice was issued. A parallel provision to article 311 of the Constitution of India existed in the Patiala State in Ordinance no. 1 of 2005 B. K. It is not disputed that the provisions of that Ordinance were not complied with and the order of removal is bad. However, the plaintiff took no steps to question that order and was superannuated on 29-9-1995. On the 25th of october, 1965, he brought the present suit for recovery of Rs. 20,831/74 P. as arrears of pension from 25th of August, 1959 to the 24th of October, 1965, that is, up to the date of the suit. Future pension was claimed from 24th of October, 1965 to 31st of May, 1966 -- the date of the decree. interest and future interest at the rate of six per cent has been claimed. The suit was contested by the State of punjab because, in the meantime, the princely States had merged in the Indian union. By reason of this merger, a Union of States was formed known as the patiala and East Punjab States Union. This Union also came to an end by its merger with the State of Punjab; and that is why the suit has been filed against the State of Punjab. It is not necessary to advert to all the pleas raised by the state of Punjab. Suffice it to say that the State of Punjab, inter alia, pleaded that the suit was barred by limitation. The trial Court held the suit to be within time on the g (sic)d that the order of removal was a nullity because (i) that no show-cause notice had been given to the plaintiff; and (ii) that the report of the Enquiry Officer was not furnished to the plaintiff. In this view of the matter, the plaintiffs suit has been decreed for a sum of Rs. 19,391/69 P. as pension for the period -- 25th of august, 1959 to 24th of October, 1965 and on this amount, interest has been decreed amounting to Rs. 3,588/67 P. at the rate of six per cent. In addition to this, a decree for Rs. 1,893/52 P. has been passed for the period -- 24th of october, 1965 to 31st of May, 1966. The State of Punjab is dissatisfied with this decision and has come up in appeal to this Court.

(3.) THE learned Advocate General's contention is that the trial Court was in error in holding that the plaintiff's suit is within limitation It is urged that the plaintiff was removed from service on the 21st of January, 1949; and till it is declared that the plaintiff continued to be in the service of the State of Punjab or its predecessor, he will not be entitled to any relief. His claim for such a declaration is barred by time both under Article 120 and Article 131. In support of his contention, that Article 120 of the Limitation Act applies, the learned Advocate General has placed his liance on the decisions in Abdul Vakil v. Secretary of State, AIR 1943 Oudh 368; jagdish Prasad Mathur v. United Provinces Government, AIR 1956 All 114; Ran-jit kumar Chakravarty v. State of West Bengal. AIR 1958 Cal 551 and State of andhra Pradesh v. Sabhanuddin, AIR 1965 Andhra Pradesh 188 And in support of his contention that even if longer period of limitation under Article 131 is held to be available to the plaintiff, the suit is still barred. In this connection reliance has been placed on the decision in Hidayat Ullah v. Gokul Chand. AIR 1937 All 57. It is also pointed out by Mr. J. N. Kauahal, that the bar of limitation cannot be avoided by wording the plaint in such a manner as to bring the suit under a different article of the Limitation Act, under which it would come on a true interpretation of the nature of the suit.