Regular Second Appeal No. 2279 of 1991 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 2279 of 1991 Date of decision: May 19, 2010 State of Punjab and others ...Appellants Versus Balbir Singh ...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. T.S. Chauhan, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Praveen Chander Goyal, Addl.A.G. Punjab for the State. RANJIT SINGH J. The respondent-plaintiff had served the Police Department from 9.11.1974 till 30.8.1976. He was involved in a criminal case and FIR No. 227 dated 19.08.1976 was registered against him under Sections 366/255/34 IPC. Another constable named Hari Krishan was also involved in the FIR. Both were acquitted on 21.1.1977. The grievance of the respondent-plaintiff is that Hari Krishan was taken back in service but similar relief has been declined to the respondent-plaintiff and thus he stood discriminated. It appears that the respondent-plaintiff had moved the department for his reinstatement which was declined. The appeal Regular Second Appeal No. 2279 of 1991 2 against the same was also rejected. He had accordingly filed this suit to urge that there was no reason to discriminate him viz-a-viz his co- accused Hari Krishan. The State contested the suit filed by the respondent- plaintiff. The preliminary objection was raised stating the suit filed was time barred. It was also urged that the suit was bad for non- joinder of necessary parties. The respondent-plaintiff was termed as a temporary constable. The fact that he was acquitted of the criminal charge was conceded and so also the fact that Hari Krishan was taken back in service after his acquittal. The distinction is sought to be drawn on the ground that Hari Krishan was given an fresh appointment w.e.f. 09.08.1982 and he was not taken back in service from the original date of his appointment. Accordingly, the plea of discriminations was denied. The suit was tried on the following issues:- 1. Whether the suit is within limitation? OPP 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 3. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD 4. Whether no cause of action accrues to the plaintiff to file the present suit? OPD 5. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purposes of court-fees and jurisdiction? OPD 6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to be reinstated in service and is entitled to all benefits of service on the Regular Second Appeal No. 2279 of 1991 3 grounds alleged in the plaint? OPD. 7. Relief. The suit of the respondent-plaintiff was decreed against which the State filed an appeal. The appeal was also dismissed and the State accordingly has filed this Regular Second Appeal. The main submission made by the State counsel is that the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff was time barred having been filed after 10 years of the date the cause of action accrued. The impugned order was passed on 30.08.1976 and the suit was filed on 03.10.1986. The plea of limitation as raised on behalf of the State was brushed aside on the ground that limitation would not apply to those cases, where the order itself is void. It is not stated as to how the order is void to ignore the plea of limitation. Even otherwise, this view cannot be sustained as the same has not been approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sneh Gupta versus Devi Sarup and others 2009 (6) SCC 194. Accordingly, the judgment under appeal cannot be sustained. There may be a some substance in the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff that he was being discriminated. No doubt, person identically situated was granted relief and taken back in service but that happened in the year 1982. It is not understood as to why the respondent-plaintiff had waited till October, 1986 to file the suit despite having known that his co- accused was reinstated in 1982. The suit was rightly dismissed as time barred. The substantial question of law in regard to the suit being time barred would arise in this case. It has been brought to my Regular Second Appeal No. 2279 of 1991 4 notice that the respondent-plaintiff is out of service. It would not be appropriate to pass any order to reinstate him at this belated stage. The Regular Second Appeal is allowed. May 19, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE