Regular Second Appeal No. 2852 of 1986 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 2852 of 1986 Date of decision: 23.03.2010 The Punjab State ...Appellant Versus Sucha Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Ms. Ambika Luthra, AAG, Punjab for the appellant. None for the respondent. ***** RANJIT SINGH J. Respondent-plaintiff had challenged the following orders whereby direction for stoppage of various increment with cumulative effect was made:- 1. No. 1644-50 dated 3.3.75 Two increments. 2. No. 7263-66 dated 3.9.75 One increment. 3. No. 1875/ ¼ RCC dated 27.10.76 Two increments. 4. No. 10159/TA dated 23.11.77 One increment. 5. No. 10160/TA dated 23.11.77 -do- 6. No. 1271/TA dated 12.5.78 One increment 7. No. 2858/TA dated 20.12.78 Two increment 8. No. 2859/TA dated 20.12.78 One increment 9. No. 4520-23/TA dated 1.6.81 One increment As per the pleadings, the respondent-plaintiff became aware of these orders when his pay was revised in the year 1980. Regular Second Appeal No. 2852 of 1986 2 While fixing his revised pay scale his previous service was not counted towards increment. When his various representations were not attended, he contacted the ministerial staff for clarification. On inspection of the service book, he learnt that orders directing stoppage of increment had been made against the respondent- plaintiff and thus he was not held entitled to the revised pay scale as was being prayed. He, accordingly, filed the suit after serving a notice under Section 80 CPC. In response, written statement has been filed taking a plea that the suit is barred by limitation. It was also pleaded that the respondent-plaintiff was industrial worker and thus suit was not maintainable. The order directing stoppage of increment was justified as these were passed as per the rules. The suit was tried on following issues by the trial Court:- 1. Whether the orders in question passed by the defendant No. 1 are illegal and in-effective?OPP 2. Whether the written statement was filed by a competent officer of the defendant department if not its effect?OPP 3. Relief. The trial Court came to conclude that all orders referred to above were illegal or void except order dated 27.10.1976. The appellant-State, thereafter, filed an appeal against the same and the appellate Court in addition to upholding the order dated 27.10.1976 also held that another order dated 24.02.1975, described as order dated 03.03.1975 to be right and legally valid. This order was earlier Regular Second Appeal No. 2852 of 1986 3 held to be illegal. Remaining orders were held to be illegal and bad on that count. The appellate Court while taking this view had further observed that the impugned order having been held to be not sustainable on technical ground, the department would be at liberty to initiate fresh proceedings against the respondent-plaintiff for the previous allegation, if so desired. The State counsel is not aware whether any fresh proceedings initiated against the respondent- plaintiff or not. The primary plea now raised before me is that the suit was barred by limitation as the order, which were passed in the year 1975-76 etc., were challenged in the year 1983. I am not inclined to go into the question of limitation at this belated stage, specially in the background that the explanation given by the respondent-plaintiff that he was not aware of the orders passed and learned only when his pay was being not revised could not be seriously rebutted. Even otherwise, in such cases there may be recurring cause of action with the loss of increment every month to which otherwise, the employee is entitled to. Once the liberty was given to the appellants to proceed against the respondent, they could have passed any order subsequent thereto by removing the defects, which were noticed by the Court. That having not done would be another reason for the Court not to interfere in the impugned judgment. The Regular Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed. March 23, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE