IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJUAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No.3196 of 2007 DATE OF ORDER:30.4.2009 Ramesh Chand Nayar ....Appellant Versus State of Punjab and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: Mr. R.P. Kansal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. R.L. Gupta, Addl. A.G. Punjab, for the respondents. Vinod K. Sharma,J. (Oral) This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 12.6.2007 passed by the learned Courts below vide which the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant has been partly decreed. The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for declaration claiming that he was entitled, to one proficiency step up increment due on 1.1.1986, which was due on completion of 8 years of service as SDO. All consequential benefits were also sought. The plaintiff-appellant pleaded that he retired as SDO on 31.10.1997 from the office of Samana Canal Lining Division, Patiala. It was the case of the plaintiff-appellant that he was promoted as SDO, and that his services were regularized in March 1973. The plaintiff was entitled to proficiency step up on completion of 8 years of service as SDO as per instruction of Punjab Government dated 1.12.1988. The clarificatory instructions were issued vide different circulars issued from time to time. The circulars were issued on 20.9.1994, 10.3.1997 and 11.8.1998. The plaintiff-appellant further claimed that similarly situated persons i.e. D.K. Soni, Ram Nath Sharma, Hari Chand Kapoor and Jaswant Singh Rattra had been granted proficiency step up increment on completion R.S.A. No.3196 of 2007 -2- of 8 years of service but he was denied the benefit without any justification. The plaintiff-appellant issued a notice under Section 80 CPC. Having received no reply to the notice issued by him, he invoked the jurisdiction of Civil Court for the relief. The suit was contested primarily on the ground that the suit of the plaintiff was time-barred as he retired on 30.10.1997 whereas the suit was filed on 29.9.2001 i.e. after 4 years. That suit of the plaintiff/appellant was said to be bad for non-joinder/misjoinder of necessary parties. The legality and validity of notice issued under Section 80 CPC, besides jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain and try the suit was also challenged. On merits it was admitted that the plaintiff-appellant retired as SDO on 31.10.1997 and that he was promoted and his services were regularized in March 1973. It was denied that the plaintiff-appellant was entitled to proficiency step up increment, after completion of 8 years of service, as per the instructions of Punjab Government relied upon by the plaintiff-appellant. It was pleaded, that instructions are dated 1.12.1998 whereas plaintiff-appellant retired from service on 31.10.1997, therefore, these instructions were not applicable to him. Issuance of clarificatory circulars by the Government from time to time were admitted. Learned trial court on appreciation of the evidence recorded a finding, that the plaintiff-appellant was entitled to one proficiency step up increment due on 1.1.1986, with all consequential benefits. The plaintiff-appellant was, thus, held entitled to the declaration prayed for. The suit was held to be within limitation, as by non grant of proficiency step up and thus plaintiff's salary was reduced, his R.S.A. No.3196 of 2007 -3- pension was also affected, which gave recurring cause of action. Issue No.4 onus of which was on defendant/appellant, was decided against the defendants as not pressed. The suit was decreed, however, learned courts below keeping in view the law of limitation, restricted the payment of arrears to 38 months only. The defendant-respondent did not choose to challenge the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court, however, plaintiff- appellant chose to file an appeal against the impugned part of the judgment vide which arrears were restricted to 38 months. The findings recorded by the learned trial court stand affirmed by the learned lower appellate court. The appeal filed by the plaintiff/respondent was dismissed. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that this appeal raises following substantial questions of law: “Whether the learned courts below were justified in restricting the benefit of arrears to 38 months”? Learned counsel for the appellant, vehemently contends that this Court while entertaining writ petition filed by the similarly situated persons was pleased to grant benefit from due date without restricting arrears to 38 months. Learned courts below therefore, were not justified in restricting the benefit in case of the plaintiff-appellant as he was entitled to treatment equal to the similarly situated persons. On consideration, I find no force in the contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellant. There is no limitation prescribed for granting relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. The jurisdiction of R.S.A. No.3196 of 2007 -4- this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution is equitable/supervisory therefore, relief is not controlled by the provisions of the Limitation Act. The Civil Court is bound by the provisions of the Limitation Act, and the claims falling beyond the period of limitation cannot be extended. The learned courts below, therefore, rightly held that the suit was within limitation, were further justified in restricting the claim of arrears to 38 months. No ground for interference is made out. Dismissed. 30.4.2009 ( Vinod K. Sharma) rajeev Judge