Tarsem Lal vs State of Punjab

L.N. Mittal, J.

C.M. No. 7259-C of 2010:

Application is allowed and Annexure P-1 is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.

C.M. No. 7260-C of 2010:

The application is disposed of by taking up the appeal for final disposal.

Main Appeal:

Plaintiff Tarsem Lal is in second appeal.

Plaintiff-Appellant filed suit against Defendant-Respondent State of Punjab. The Plaintiff is Conductor in Punjab Roadways. In the suit, he has

challenged five punishment orders Exs. P-5 to P-9 passed by the Respondent. The Plaintiff claimed fixation of his pay as per length of service.

The Defendant-Respondent controverted the plaint allegations and pleaded that the impugned punishment orders are legal and valid. Various

other pleas were also raised.

Learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Anandpur Sahib, vide judgment and decree dated 18.11.1989, partly decreed the suit by holding punishment

order dated 04.10.1983 (Ex.P-5) to be null and void and directed the Defendant to grant necessary consequential benefits to the Plaintiff. The suit

qua punishment orders Exs. P-6 to P-9 was dismissed. In first appeal preferred by the Plaintiff, learned Additional District Judge, Ropar, vide

judgment and decree dated 11.01.1993, modified the judgment and decree of the trial court and decreed the Plaintiff''s suit holding punishment

order Ex.P-6 to be null and void and also holding punishment order Ex.P-9 to be illegal partly. However, decree of the trial court in favour of the

Plaintiff regarding punishment order Ex.P-5 was set aside holding the suit qua the said order to be barred by limitation. Feeling aggrieved, Plaintiff

has preferred the instant second appeal.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant contended that punishment order Ex.P-5 is null and void as major penalty of stoppage of four increments

with cumulative effect was imposed by the said order without holding regular inquiry. Learned Counsel for the Appellant contended that decree of

the trial court declaring punishment order Ex.P-5 to be null and void and granting consequential benefits to the Plaintiff-Appellant was not

challenged by the Defendant-Respondent by filing any appeal and therefore, in first appeal preferred by the Plaintiff, learned lower appellate court

could not have set aside the relief granted to the Plaintiff by the trial court. It was also contended by counsel for the Appellant that suit qua order

Ex.P-5 was not barred by limitation as the order had the effect of reducing the salary of the Appellant and therefore, cause of action accrued to the

Plaintiff-Appellant every month. Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on judgment of this Court namely Makhan Singh v. State of

Punjab and Ors. reported as 2009 (4) R.A.J. 59.

Learned Counsel for the Respondent, on the other hand, contended that impugned punishment order Ex.P-5 is dated 04.10.1983 and suit to

challenge the same was filed on 05.11.1988 i.e. after expiry of limitation period and therefore, suit qua the said order has been rightly held to be

time barred by the lower appellate court.

I have carefully considered the rival contentions. Decree of the trial court granting relief to Plaintiff qua punishment order Ex.P-5 was not

challenged by the Defendant-Respondent by filing first appeal. Consequently, decree of the trial court to that extent had attained finality. Lower

appellate court committed illegality in setting aside the said relief granted to the Plaintiff-Appellant by the trial court because the Defendant-

Respondent had neither filed appeal to challenge the same nor had filed cross-objections in the appeal preferred by the Plaintiff-Appellant.

Consequently, relief granted by the trial court qua punishment order Ex.P-5 could not be set aside in appeal preferred by the Appellant.

As regards limitation also, cause of action accrued to the Plaintiff-Appellant every month as the impugned punishment order had the effect of

reducing his salary. Consequently, the suit qua punishment order Ex.P-5 would be within limitation regarding arrears of monetary benefits for the

period of three years and two months preceding the filing of the suit. I am supported in this view by judgment of this Court in the case of Makhan

Singh (supra).

In view of the aforesaid, I find that following substantial questions of law arise for determination in the instant second appeal:

Whether lower appellate court committed illegality in setting aside the decree of the trial court qua punishment order Ex.P-5 even though the

Defendant- Respondent had not challenged the same by filing appeal or cross-objections?

Whether suit filed by the Plaintiff was barred by limitation to challenge punishment order Ex.P-5?

For the reasons already recorded, both the above substantial questions of law are answered in favour of Plaintiff-Appellant to the extent

indicated herein before.

As a necessary upshot of the aforesaid discussion, the instant second appeal is partly allowed and impugned judgment and decree of the lower

appellate court are modified to the extent that in addition to the relief granted to the Plaintiff-Appellant by the lower appellate court, the relief

granted to the Plaintiff-Appellant by the trial court shall also stand restored with modification that the Plaintiff-Appellant shall be entitled to the

consequent arrears qua order Ex.P-5 for the period of three years and two months only preceding the filing of the suit.