In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... R.S.A. No.1227 of 1988 ..... Date of decision:6.9.2011 Revail Singh .....Appellant v. State of Punjab and another .....Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL ..... 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? ...... Present: Mr. G.C. Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Ranvir S. Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the respondents. ..... Mohinder Pal, J. This regular second appeal is against the judgment of reversal passed by the first appellate Court vide which the impugned orders of punishment dated 6.3.1975, dated 11.9.1975, order dated 1.1.1976 and order dated 14.12.1978 passed by the General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Pathankot (appellant No.2) were set aside by the trial Court, however, the same have been upheld by the first appellate Court by setting aside the order of the trial Court. However, order dated 14.6.1977 stopping four increments of the respondent with cumulative effect has been set aside by both the R.S.A. No.1227 of 1988 [2] Courts below. Brief facts of this case are that the plaintiff (appellant herein) joined the Punjab Roadways as Conductor on 26.9.1973 in the pay scale of `110-200. His services were terminated in 1979. He challenged the said order and got a decree in his favour. He was reinstated in 1980 and was given the revised pay scale of `400-600. His basic pay was fixed at `400/-. At the time of reinstatement, he was told that his pay would be re-fixed after the disposal of the appeal filed by the respondents. The appeal of the respondents was dismissed in 1984. Thereafter, his pay was fixed at `420/- per month. He made inquiries from the concerned Clerk as to why his pay is less than his juniors. The concerned official told him that on account of the above impugned orders, his annual increments had been stopped. As the above orders were not communicated to him, he filed civil suit contending that no departmental inquiry was conducted against him as per service rules. It was submitted that some illegal show cause notices-cum charge-sheet were served upon him proposing penalty likely to be imposed. The appellant replied to these show cause notices, but no decision was communicated to him and he was condemned unheard. The appellant approached the Court of Sub Judge Ist Class, Pathankot by filing a suit for declaration to the effect that the the above five orders inflicting punishment of stoppage of annual increments with cumulative effect passed by respondent No.2 were illegal, null and void, ineffective, unconstitutional, against the principles of natural justice, violation of service rules, cryptic, non-speaking and not communicated according to service rules with the consequential relief that the appellant was entitled to all benefits of service R.S.A. No.1227 of 1988 [3] in the absence of the orders. The suit of the plaintiff was contested by the respondents by filing written statement and taking up various grounds including the ground that the suit of the plaintiff was badly barred by limitation and was liable to be dismissed on this score alone. Learned trial Court framed following issues in this case:- “1. Whether the orders dated 6.3.1976, 11.9.1975, 1.1.1976, 14.6.1977 and 14.12.1978 passed by defendant No.2 are illegal, null and void etc.? OPP 2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is time barred? OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration as requested for? OPD 4. Relief.” The learned trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff while taking into account the finding on issue No.1 by holding that the when the order dated 14.6.1977 did not exist in the file Ex.P.1, all the remaining four orders were illegal, null and void etc. Resultantly, the plaintiff was held entitled to all the benefits of service in the absence of all these orders. The first appellate Court took up the issue of limitation and set aside the findings of the trial Court by accepting the appeal and holding that the suit of the plaintiff Revail Singh was time barred. However, it upheld the order of the trial Court with regard to order dated 14.6.1977 vide which four increments were stopped. Hence, the present regular second appeal. R.S.A. No.1227 of 1988 [4] I have heard Mr. G.C. Gupta, Advocate for the appellant, Mr. Ranvir S. Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the respondents and have gone through the record very carefully. While arguing before me, learned counsel for the appellant has laid emphasis on the point that once it is held that the impugned orders were not communicated to the appellant and were non-speaking orders, then these orders were void ab initio. It is argued that law of limitation in such a situation does not apply and the appellant could challenge the orders at any time as has already been held by the learned trial Court. It is further argued that the learned lower appellate Court has erred in holding that the impugned orders were voidable and could be challenged within a period of three years. Learned counsel submitted that the appellant was not at all aware of the impugned orders. The appellant came to know of the impugned orders only in the year 1984 when he came to know that his juniors were drawing more pay than him. He thereafter immediately inquired from the office as to why he was drawing less pay than his juniors. It is then he came to know that his increments had been stopped with cumulative effect vide the above mentioned impugned orders, therefore, the civil suit had been filed on 27.2.1986 which was within limitation. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the order passed by the learned appellate Court is well reasoned order and does not call for any interference as the appellant did not care for more than eight years to challenge the orders stopping his increments. It is submitted that the suit for declaration against these orders has been filed by the plaintiff before the learned lower Court only on R.S.A. No.1227 of 1988 [5] 27.2.1986 which is patently time barred having not been filed within three years from the date of passing of the orders i.e. between 6.3.1975 and 14.12.1978. After appreciating the arguments addressed by both sides, I am of the considered view that the limitation clock started ticking from 6.3.1975 when the first order stopping one increment was passed. In Punjab State v. Swarn Singh, Conductor, RSA No.2515 of 1986 (decided on 3.9.1987), this Court has held that a public servant is presumed to know the date of his increments and if the same are not allowed, it is presumed that he would agitate the matter before the competent authority to ask for allowance of the increment, if the same is not stopped. Further more, due effect had been given to the impugned orders in the service record of the appellant and it could not, therefore, be said that the appellant could ignore the same. If these orders were not communicated to him or were non-speaking orders, then he should have challenged the same within limitation as there is not only one order which he could ignore but there were five orders passed stopping his annual increments between 6.3.1975 and 14.12.1978 and he did not care to challenge these orders upto 27.2.1986. Since the suit has been filed in the trial Court on 27.2.1986 it was hopelessly time barred. Resultantly, there is no error or ambiguity in the judgment passed by the first appellate Court. Consequently, the regular second appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit. September 6, 2011. (Mohinder Pal) Judge *hsp*