State of Haryana & Ors v. Banwari Lal

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

(209) RSA No. 2964 of 2014 (O&M) Date of Decision : 28.05.2024 State of Haryana and others ...Appellants Versus

Banwari Lal ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI Present:  Ms. Vibha Tewari, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for the appellants. Mr. Aditya Yadav, Advocate for the respondent. *** Harsimran Singh Sethi J. (Oral)

¶1In the present appeal, the challenge is to the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court dated 28.02.2014 by which the judgment and decree of the trial court dated 31.05.2012 has been set-aside and the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff has been allowed qua the revised pay scale from 01.01.1996 along with arrears and interest as well and the recovery done from the respondent-plaintiff from his pensionary benefits has been held to be bad.

¶2Learned counsel for the appellants-defendants argues that the lower appellate court without appreciating the correct facts has allowed the appeal filed by the respondent-plaintiff so as to set-aside the well reasoned judgment of the trial court.  Learned counsel for the appellants-defendants submits that the lower appellate court failed to consider that the suit, which was filed in the year 2009, was not at all maintainable seeking revised pay scale from 01.01.1996.

¶3Learned   counsel   for   the   appellants-defendants   further submits that with regard to the setting aside of the recovery, no order directing the recovery was challenged and the lower appellate court allowed the relief, on presumption that if any order has been passed or not, conveyed to the respondent-plaintiff or not, by which the recovery has been done, has set-aside the recovery from the respondent-plaintiff. Learned counsel for the appellants-defendants submits that the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court is perverse and is liable to be set-aside as the suit qua the relief claimed was time barred.

¶4Learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff, on the other hand, submits that the relief for which the respondent-plaintiff was entitled for has been granted by the lower appellate court by correctly appreciating the facts and the evidence, which has come on record and, hence, the same is liable to be upheld and the appeal filed by the appellants-defendants is liable to be dismissed.

¶5I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance.

¶6The first question which arises is whether with regard to the claim of  the  respondent-plaintiff  seeking  the  revision  of  pay from

01.01.1996 by filing the civil suit in the year 2009 is maintainable or not. The said question has already been decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State of Punjab and others  Vs.  Balkaran Singh, 2006 5 &6 344 7(..  Hon2ble 3$pre%e 4o$rt of !ndia after e8a%inin" vario$s #$d"%ents, held that the li%itation starts to r$n fro% the date, ri"ht to s$e accr$ed -$a the "rant of a pay scale and the clai% has to be raised within a period of li%itation fro% the date ri"ht to accr$ed arose.  The relevant para"raph of the said #$d"%ent is as $nder :, "15. We shall first deal with the first two suits relating to the declaration that the plaintiffs therein are entitled to be placed in the revised scale of pay of Rs.1200-1850/-. The suits filed are for declaration that the order or endorsement dated 13.3.1980 was illegal and void. The suits were filed more than 12 years after the order fixing the revised scale of pay at Rs.940-1850/-. A suit for declaration is governed by Article 58 of the Limitation Act and the period is three years and the terminus au quo is "when the right to sue first accrues".(emphasis supplied) Clearly, the right to seek the relief of declaration that they are entitled to revised scale of pay of Rs.1200-1850/-, accrued to the plaintiffs on

13.3.1980, when the endorsement in that behalf was made by the Director of Agricultural Services and the plaintiffs were denied revised pay at Rs.1200-1850/- and were paid only at Rs.940-1850/-. It was not the mere making of an order, but an action that had immediate impact on the right of the plaintiffs to recover a higher salary as per their claim. The cause of action thus clearly arose for the first time. Thus the suit for declaration was clearly barred by limitation going by Article 58 of the Limitation Act. The fact that some other officer had been given a decree for the enhanced revised scale, does not furnish the plaintiffs in the first two suits with a fresh cause of action. It is well settled that the time does not stop to run once it has started to run. Therefore, the reliance placed on the decree in Civil Suit No. 461 of 1991 had absolutely no relevance on this question. Strictly speaking, Civil Suit No. 461 of 1991 also ought not to have been decreed since that suit was clearly barred by limitation, since the order sought to be challenged in that suit of 1991 was also the order dated

13.3.1980. But in view of the decree passed therein, it is not for us now to go into the correctness or otherwise of the decision rendered therein. Suffice it to say that the said decision cannot give the plaintiffs a fresh cause of action. The time started to run when the right to sue first accrued to the plaintiff and that first accrual was clearly on 13.3.1980 and on expiry of 3 years therefrom, the suit for declaration became barred."

¶7!n the present case, the respondent,plaintiff is clai%in" the benefit of revised pay scale fro% ( .( . ../.  The ri"ht to s$e accr$ed in favo$r of the respondent,plaintiff on ( .( . ../ hence, he co$ld have challen"ed the non,"rant of the pay scale within a period of three years fro% the said date whereas, the s$it was filed after a period of  * years of the ri"ht accr$ed, which s$it cannot be accepted as to be within li%itation 1eepin" in view the #$d"%ent of the Hon2ble 3$pre%e 4o$rt of !ndia in Ba *aran Singh (s%+ra!. '. 9ith re"ard to the second benefit, which has been "ranted by the lower appellate co$rt in favo$r of the respondent,plaintiff in settin", aside the recovery, which has been done fro% the pensionary benefits of the respondent,plaintiff, it %ay be noticed that the respondent,plaintiff retired in the year  ../.   !t is a conceded position that recovery in -$estion was also done fro% hi% in the said year itself.  9itho$t there being any challenge to an order by which the recovery was done, recovery has been set-aside by the lower appellate court that too with regard to a suit, which was filed 13 years after the recovery.

¶9Firstly, while passing the judgment, the lower appellate court failed to consider the question of limitation qua the relief being claimed and granted in favour of the respondent-plaintiff.   Further, the lower appellate court also failed to the notice whether, any order was passed for affecting the said recovery or not and whether the said order was under challenge or not.  Without appreciating all these facts, the relief has been granted, which judgment of the lower appellate court has to be treated as a perverse to the facts and evidence, which have come on record.

¶10Keeping in view the above, the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court dated 28.02.2014 is perverse to the evidence and facts, which have brought on record and cannot be sustained and is accordingly set-aside.  The appeal filed by the appellants-defendants is allowed and the judgment and decree of the trial court is brought in operation.

¶11Accordingly, the present regular second appeal is allowed. Pending   miscellaneous   application,   if   any,   also   stands disposed of. May 28, 2024 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) kanchan   JUDGE