REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.2893 OF 1985 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: FEBRUARY 09, 2010 State of Punjab .....Appellant VERSUS Parshotam Lal ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Amit Chaudhary, AAG, Punjab, for the appellant. Mr. Gaurav Chopra, Advocate, for the respondent. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. This order will dispose of Regular Second Appeal Nos.2893 and 2894 of 1985 (State of Punjab Vs. Parshotam Lal). Parshotam Lal, Conductor in Punjab Roadways, Ferozepur, had impugned an order punishing him with stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect by filing a civil suit on the ground that the same was illegal, ultra-vires, cryptic and capricious. The order, which was impugned through the suit read as under:- “As a result of departmental enquiry held against Shri Parshotam Lal, Conductor No.19, he is brought to the REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.2893 OF 1985 :{ 2 }: time scale in the grade of Rs.110-200 with immediate effect. His next two increments are also stopped with cumulative effect. He is reinstated forthwith. He will not get anything more to what he has already been paid during the period of suspension.” The order, as noticed above, did not reveal that what were the charges against the respondent-plaintiff or as to what was the evidence collected to reach a conclusion by the Enquiry Officer. This order was found to be cryptic and nebulous in character. The Court accordingly held that the same is liable to be set-aside only on the ground that it is a non-speaking order. In support, reference was made to the case of State of Punjab Vs. Dr.Ram Kishan Chopra, 1978 Labour Industrial Cases N.O.C. 86 (P&H). In this regard, reference was also made to some other judgments. One of the issues framed related to the suit being barred on the ground of limitation. The plea raised on behalf of the respondent-plaintiff was that the impugned order being void, ab initio, there was no requirement of seeking declaration and as such, the question of limitation did not arise. In this regard, reference was made to the judgments in the cases of State of Madhya Pardesh Vs. Syad Qamarali, 1967 S.L.R. 228, Mohinder Singh Patwari Vs. Punjab State, 1977 S.L.R. 447 and Amrik Singh Constable Vs. the State of Punjab, 1980 (2) S.L.R. 616. The judgments relied upon on behalf of the State were also considered and thereafter on the basis of the finding, the issue of limitation was held against the respondent-plaintiff. However, in an appeal filed, the same was reversed. The State has accordingly filed the present two Regular REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.2893 OF 1985 :{ 3 }: Second Appeals. The primary contention appears to be that the suit was barred by limitation, which has been rightly decided by the Trial Court but was wrongly reversed by the first Appellate Court. The impugned order was passed in the year 1973 against which the suit was instituted on 7.1.1983. Thus, the only issue, on which these appeals are filed, is that the point of limitation has not been rightly decided by the first Appellate Court. It is, thus, to be seen whether the issue of limitation would be a substantial question of law requiring consideration. In my view, the issue of limitation primarily would depend upon the facts as pleaded and the facts and circumstances available in a particular case. No substantial question of law in such cases would arise. The support in this regard can be had from the observations made in Special Leave Petition No.7110 of 2007 (State of Haryana Vs. Satish Kumar) decided on 30.4.2007. There is another reason for which there may not be need to go into this aspect in the present appeals. The respondent-plaintiff has retired from service since 31.1.2001. There was no stay and obviously all his pension and pensionary benefits would stand settled. To interfere in the present appeals at this stage would not otherwise be fair. Both the Regular Second Appeals containing identical point of law, which is not a substantial question of law, are, thus, dismissed. February 09, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE