ecial Leave Petition C No 5628 of 1988
From the Judgment and Order dated 411988 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Regular Second Appeal No 9 18 of 1987
PP Rao and Shakeel Ahmed for the Petitioner
SC Maheshwari PK Chakravarti Ms Sandhya Goswami and VK Bhardwaj for the Respondent
The following Order of the Court was delivered We have heard this case arising out of Haryana Urban Control of Rent and Eviction Act 1973
We feel that this case is fully covered by the decision of Hon ble Mr Justice Sabyasachi Mukharji  Hon ble Mr Justice Ranganathan in Atma Ram Mittal vs Ishwar Singh Punia 122  We respectfully agree with the princi ple enunciated in that decision
The special leave petition is dismissed
Learned counsel for the respondent Mr SC Maheshwari states that the decree will not be executed till 30th April 1990 subject to an undertaking on usual terms being filed in this Court within four weeks from today
If the undertaking is not filed the decree shall become executable forthwith
GN Petition dis missed


Summary:
The plaintiff appellant was dismissed from service by the Collector on 1311966
His departmental appeal was dismissed by the Divisional Commissioner on 3181966
Thereupon the appellant instituted a suit on 3011969 asking for a declaration that the order of dismissal was inoperative and that he continued to be in service
The suit was dismissed by the trial court and that order was upheld by the appellate courts
In dismissing the suit the courts below accepted the defence plea that it had been filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed therefore under Article 58 of the first Schedule of the Limitation Act
Hence this appeal
This appeal initially came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court
At the hearing reli ance was placed before a decision of this Court in Sita Ram Goel vs The Municipal Board Kanpur  Ors  in support of the contention that the suit was barred by limitation
The Division Bench took the view that the deci sion of this Court rendered by five Judge Bench in Sita Ram Goel s aforesaid required reconsideration
This is how the appeal has come up before a Seven Judge Bench
The question that fell for determination by the Court was When was the right to sue first accrued  to the appellant ie whether from the date when the original adverse order of dismissal was passed against him or when the departmentalstatutory appeal was finally disposed of
The appellant s contention is that the original order having merged in the final order whereby his departmental appeal was disposed of the right to sue accrued from that date and on this reckoning the suit filed by him was within time
44 Allowing the appeal and remanding the matter to trial Court this Court HELD Powers of adjudication ordinarily vested in courts are being exercised under the law by tribunals and other constituted authorities
51H In respect of many disputes the jurisdiction of the court is now barred and there is a vesting of jurisdiction in tribunals and authorities
That being the position there is no justification for the distinction between courts and tribunals in regard to the principle of merger
51H 52A It must be held in the instant case that the order of dismissal made by the Collector did merge into the order of the Divisional Commissioner when the appellant s appeal was dismissed on 3181966
52B The cause of action first arises when the remedies available to the public servant under the relevant service Rules as to redressal are disposed of
53B The cause of action shall be taken to arise not from the date of the original adverse order but on the date when the order of the higher authority where a statutory remedy is provided entertaining the appeal or representation is made
Where no such order is made though the remedy has been availed of a six months  period from the date of preferring of the appeal or making of the representation shall be taken to be the date when cause of action shall be taken to have first arisen
53H 54A In every such case until the appeal or representation provided by a law is disposed of accrual of the cause of action shall first arise only when the higher authority makes its order on appeal or representation and where such order is not made on the expiry of six months from the date when the appeal was filed or representation was made
54D Redressal of grievances in the hands of the departmental authorities taken an unduly long time
That is so on account of the fact that no attention is ordinarily bestowed over these matters and they are not considered to be governmental business of substance
This approach has to be deprecated and authorities on whom power is vested to dispose of ap peals and revisions under the service Rules must dispose of such matters as expeditiously as possible
52G H 45 Ordinarily a period of three to six months should be the outer limit
That would discipline the system and keep the public servant away from a protracted period of litiga tion
53A Sita Ram Goel vs The Municipal Board Kanpur  Ors   overruled
Madan Gopal Rungta vs Secretary to the Government of Orissa 1962 Supp
3 SCR 906 followed
Pierce Leslie Co Ltd vs Violet Ouchterlony Wapshare  Ors and vice verse   State of Uttar Pradesh vs Muhammad Nooh   Collector of Customs Calcutta vs East India Commercial Co Ltd  Somnath Sahu vs State of Orissa  Ors  CITv
Amrit Lal Bhagilal  Co 1959 SCR 713 and Raghuvir Jha vs State of Bihar  Ors  referred to