Regular Second Appeal No. 4713 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 4713 of 2009 Date of decision: 08.04.2010 Gora Lal Jain ...Appellant Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. Vivek Suri, Advocate for the appellant. RANJIT SINGH J. The appellant had retired from service on 31.01.1991 on completion of 58 years of age. The appellant instituted this suit on 17.12.2007 seeking declaration that order passed by respondent No. 2 and conveyed to him on 24.02.2006 (Annexure P-12) declining the prayer to allow the appellant to continue in service till 31.01.1993 upto the age of 60 years was illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and against the rules and regulations. The appellant had joined Pepsu State as Clerk on 01.03.1951. Pepsu was merged into the State of Punjab and accordingly he became an employee of Punjab State. In view of the applicable rules, the appellant would claim that he was entitled to continue in service up to the age of 60 years and thus his retirement on superannuation as ordered w.e.f. 31.01.1991 was wrong and illegal. He accordingly claimed that he be given notional retiral benefit by taking him to be in service up to 31.03.1993. To explain the delay on his part to file the suit in 2007, the Regular Second Appeal No. 4713 of 2009 2 appellant would state that a person namely C. Piare Lal was appointed in the Police department and was retired on completion of 58 years of age. He had filed a suit in November, 1991 claiming protection of Section 115 (7) of the Re-organisation Act. Said Piare Lal had retired from service on 30.11.1988. This suit was decreed and the appeal filed by the State was dismissed on 1995. Second appeal was allowed by this Court in 1996 against which said Piare Lal filed Special Leave Petition, which was allowed on 08.08.1997. As per the appellant, he became aware of this judgment and had accordingly submitted his representations on 01.08.2003 and 12.01.2003 following by another representation dated 02.05.2005 and thus justified his delayed approach. The respondents appeared and filed a written statement taking objection that the suit was filed with the delay of 15 years. The plea of estoppel was also raised on the ground that the appellant had submitted his application on 10.10.1990 as he was due to retire on 31.01.1991. One of the issue, which was framed by the Court was whether the suit is time barred or not. This issue was held in favour of the appellant on the ground that he was claiming benefit on the basis of judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which came to his knowledge in the year 2000. The suit was partly allowed and the appellant was held entitled to proportionate enhanced pension and other benefits as if he retired on 31.03.1993 on completion of 60 years of age. The State filed an appeal against this judgment and the First Appellate Court has accepted the appeal. The First Appellate Regular Second Appeal No. 4713 of 2009 3 court has taken a view that the suit filed by the appellant was time barred. It is also noticed that the appellant himself has stated that he came to know about the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in May, 2000. Even from this date, the suit filed was much beyond the period of 3 years. The prayer that relief of pension was a recurring cause was also not accepted. While allowing the appeal, the suit was dismissed. The appellant has accordingly filed the present Regular Second Appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that his representation was finally decided in the year 2006 and hence he suit could not have been non-suited on the ground of limitation. He would also submit that in case of claim for pension, limitation would have no meaning as right to claim pension is a recurring cause for an employee. In support, he has referred to the case of Sohan Singh versus State of Punjab and others 2007 (1) RSJ 36. Appellant has not been able to show that the representations filed by him were statutory representations permissible under any of the provisions. Concededly, the appellant had retired in the year 1991. He himself has given date of filing of the suit with delay of 15 years. Piare Lal had filed the suit within limitation after his retirement in the year 1988. Having retired in the year 1991, the appellant took 15 years to file the suit. Mere filing of representation even after being aware about the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the year 2000, would not be a sufficient reason to seek extension of the period of limitation. It is not a case of grant of pension alone. The appellant was seeking extension of date of superannuation, which was mainly prayed and Regular Second Appeal No. 4713 of 2009 4 the grant of pensionary benefit was only a consequential relief, which was to flow therefrom. Accordingly, it cannot be said to be a recurring cause to ignore the inordinate long delay in filing the suit. I am thus inclined to uphold the view taken by the First Appellate Court and would accordingly dismiss this Regular Second Appeal. April 08, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE