RSA No. 3896 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 3896 of 2011 Date of Decision : 5th December, 2011 Ram Rati & another ....Appellants Versus State of Haryana & others ....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present: Mr. Sandeep Singla, Advocate for the appellants. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : This is second appeal by plaintiffs No.1 and 3 after the plaintiffs remained unsuccessful in both the courts below. Suit was filed by appellants and proforma respondent No.5 herein (widow and two sons of Krishan Singh, since deceased) against respondents No.1 to 4 as defendants. It is undisputed that plaintiffs' predecessor Krishan Singh was employee of defendant No.3 - C. R. College of Education, Rohtak being run by defendant No.4 Jat Education Society, Rohtak. The plaintiff was placed under suspension w.e.f. 01.08.1991 and was reinstated w.e.f. 01.08.1992. He was paid subsistence allowance during the suspension period. After regular enquiry, proposal for dismissing the RSA No. 3896 of 2011 -2- deceased Krishan Singh from service, was put up before defendant No.2 (Director, Higher Education, Haryana) for approval but the proposal was declined. Krishan Singh was again suspended on 01.04.1994. However, Krishan Singh submitted his resignation from service on 15.04.1994. He died on 30.07.1998. In the suit, the plaintiffs sought declaration that they are entitled to salary minus subsistence allowance of the deceased for the suspension period from 01.08.1991 till 31.07.1992 and entitled to full salary for the period from 01.08.1992 till 18.05.1993 along with interest thereon. Defendants resisted the suit and inter alia pleaded that suspension of Krishan Singh was legal and justified. He was chargesheeted and regular enquiry was held. His resignation was accepted. Suit was alleged to be time barred. Various other pleas wee also raised. Plaintiffs filed replication wherein they controverted the stand of the defendants and reiterated the version pleaded in the plaint. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rohtak vide judgment and decree dated 06.05.2010 dismissed the suit holding the same to be time barred. First appeal preferred by the plaintiffs has been dismissed by learned District Judge, Rohtak, vide judgment and decree dated 20.04.2011. Feeling still dissatisfied, plaintiffs No.1 and 3 have filed the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the case file. Even according to plaint, cause of action arose to the plaintiff's on RSA No. 3896 of 2011 -3- 18.05.1993. Limitation period for filing the suit was three years. Suit was however filed on 14.06.2000 i.e. more than seven years after the cause of action arose. It is thus manifest that the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that there is recurring cause of action in favour of the plaintiffs. The contention cannot be accepted. The salary amount become due every month and therefore, cause of action arose every month. In any case, when the plaintiffs' predecessor was reinstated vide order dated 18.03.1993 (as mentioned in judgment of appellate Court) and even thereafter he was not paid remaining salary for the suspension period nor was paid any salary for the subsequent period till 18.05.1993, the cause of action arose immediately thereupon and the suit should have been filed within three years thereof. There was no recurring cause of action in the instant case. On the other hand, according to plaint, even the first representation, claiming the salary, was made on 28.02.1997 i.e. after expiry of limitation period of three years. Even otherwise, making of representation or rejection thereof would not amount to extension of limitation period. Once the limitation period starts running, it does not stop. In the instant case, the limitation period started running on 18.05.1993 according to own version of the plaintiffs. Consequently, the suit filed on 14.06.2000 i.e. more than seven years after the cause of action arose, is patently barred by limitation. Although compassion or sympathy cannot override express provision of law, in the instant case, needs of the plaintiffs have been taken RSA No. 3896 of 2011 -4- care of by the defendants because plaintiff No.1 has been employed on compassionate ground on the same post on which her deceased husband was working, as observed in the judgment of the lower appellate Court. The defendants have thus already shown compassion and sympathy towards the plaintiffs. For the reasons aforesaid, there is no reason to disagree with the concurrent finding recorded by the courts below that suit of the plaintiffs is barred by limitation. The said finding is the only finding that can be arrived at on the pleadings and evidence of the plaintiffs themselves. Consequently, the said finding does not suffer from any infirmity much less perversity or illegality so as to call for interference in exercise of second appellate jurisdiction. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for adjudication in this second appeal. The appeal is meritless and is accordingly dismissed in limine. 5th December, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) 'raj' JUDGE