http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 1  

PETITIONER: PUNJAB STATE & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: DARSHAN KUMAR

DATE OF JUDGMENT02/11/1995

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. HANSARIA B.L. (J)

CITATION:  1995 SCC  Supl.  (4) 220 JT 1995 (9)   130  1995 SCALE  (6)479

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      In  this  case,  the  respondent  had  filed  the  suit questioning the  orders dated  19.5.76, 28.12.77,  13.10.78, 2.7.79, 18.5.84,  29.5.86, 8.10.87 and 3.11.88 passed by the competent authority,  withholding the  increments. The Civil Court considered  the question  of limitation  and held that since the  procedure contemplated  under the  relevant rules had not been followed in conducting the enquiry, the suit is not barred  by limitation.  The  Appellate  Court  has  only stated that "no order was communicated".      We have  gone through  the allegations  stated  in  the plaint and written statement as extracted in the judgment of the Trial  Court. It does not appear that the respondent had taken the plea that the orders were not communicated to him. Admittedly, the suit was filed on September 25, 1989. Except the orders of October 8, 1987 and November 3, 1988 all other orders were  passed before  three years of the filing of the suit and are clearly barred by limitation.      Under these  circumstances, the  decree  of  the  Trial Court is  modified to  the extent  that withholding  of  the increments by  orders dated  October 8, 1987 and November 3, 1988 are  invalid in  law. In other respects, the claims are barred by limitation.      The appeal is allowed accordingly. No costs.