Chander Bhan vs State of Haryana

R.L. Anand, J.—Unsuccessful plaintiff Chander Bhan has filed the present regular second appeal and it has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 13.6.1983 passed by District Judge, Rohtak who dismissed the appeal of the appellant by affirming the judgment and decree dated 8.2.1983 passed by Sub Judge 1st Class, Rohtak whereby the suit of the plaintiff for declaration was dismissed.

The brief facts of the case are that Chander Bhan plaintiff joined the service as a Mashalcni in Interns Hostel, Medical College Hospital, Rohtak on 14.1.1972. His services were terminated by means of an order dated 13.11.1976. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration challenging the order of termination and it was inter-alia pleaded by him that he was a confirmed employee and had put in more than three years of service. He averred that the impugned order is illegal, ultra vires and not binding upon him. He made several representations to the Director Principal of Medical College Hospital, Rohtak, but to no avail. The last representation was made by him on 20.9.1979. With these broad allegations the plaintiff filed the suit.

The suit was contested and it was denied by the defendants that the plaintiff was a confirmed employee. According to the defendants, the plaintiff was only a temporary employee. His services were terminated as those were not required. The defendants took preliminary objection that the suit of the plaintiff is barred by time and is not maintainable against the Director Principal of the Medical College Hospital as he is not a legal entity.

The learned trial Court framed the following issues on the pleadings of the parties :-

"1. Whether the services of the plaintiff have been rightly terminated by the competent authority ? If so to what effect ? OPD

If issue No. 1 is not proved whether the plaintiff is still in service? OPD

Whether the suit of the plaintiff is time barred ? OPD

Whether the suit is not maintainable against defendant No. 2? OPD

Relief."

Parties led oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective cases and on the conclusion of the trial issue No. 1 was decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. Issue No. 2 was decided in favour of the defendants thought in my opinion it should have been decided in favour of the plaintiff. Issue No. 3 was decided against the plaintiff and it was held that the suit of the plaintiff is time barred. Issue No. 4 was decided in favour of defendant No. 2. Resultantly the suit was dismissed.

Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court the plaintiff filed appeal before the learned District Judge, Rohlak who vide impugned judgment and decree dated 13.6.1983 dismissed the appeal.

Still not satisfied with the observations of the Courts below, the present appeal.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the records of this case.

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant raised two-fold contentions- That both the Courts fell in error in computing the limitation. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the plaintiff filed the representation on 20.9.1979 and the said representation was dismissed. Therefore, the/ cause of action arose to the plaintiff on 20.9.1979. In the alternative it was also submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the plaintiff appellant should not be non-suited on the technical ground of the limitation as the State should not come in the way of a successful citizen who has. otherwise succeeded on merits. Also it was observed that the order of termination was illegal and void and, therefore, there is no limitation.

On the contrary, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that the cause of action arose to the plaintiff w.e.f. 13.11.1976 and the suit should have been filed within three years as per Article 113 of the Limitation Act but in the present case it has been filed on 13.10.1980. Therefore, it is hopelessly barred by time.

I have considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties. The position or law changed with the verdict of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others v. Gurdev Singh 1991(3) SCT 93 (SC) : AIR 1991 SC 2219. The view of the Supreme Court was again affirmed by the Supreme Court itself in Union of India and others v. Nandal Raigar 1996(3) SCT 449 (SC) : 1996(3) RSJ 107 wherein it was held that if a public servant is dismissed from service, the limitation would run from the date of the dismissal from service. In the present case the termination order was passed against the plaintiff on 13.11.1976. Therefore, the cause of action started accruing to him from this date. Once the cause of action started accruing to the plaintiff, it cannot be stopped by any subsequent act. The representation which was made by the plaintiff in the year 1979 will not protect the limitation for filing the suit. Moreover, this representation was not statutory. As the suit of the plaintiff is hopelessly barred by the limitation, therefore, it has been rightly dismissed by the Courts below on the ground of limitation.

Resultantly, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.

Appeal dismissed.