R. S. A. No. 2237 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : R. S. A. No. 2237 of 2010 Date of Decision : April 01, 2011 Punjab State through its Secretary and others .... Appellants Vs. Balwinder Singh .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Vivek Chauhan, AAG, Punjab for the appellants. Mr. Onkar Singh Batalvi, Advocate for the respondent. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Defendants State of Punjab and its functionaries, who were successful in the trial court, but have been unsuccessful in the lower appellate court, have filed the instant second appeal. Respondent-plaintiff Balwinder Singh filed suit against the appellants to challenge punishment orders dated 11.11.1993, 30.01.1995, 26.03.1998, 17.12.1999 and 14.01.2000, whereby Senior Superintendent of Police ordered forfeiture of service of the plaintiff for three years, for one R. S. A. No. 2237 of 2010 2 year, for two years, for three years and for two years respectively, with permanent effect for increment purpose. Appellate orders passed by Deputy Inspector General of Police have also been challenged. It was pleaded that the aforesaid orders are null and void being against statutory rules and principles of natural justice. The plaintiff also claimed re-fixation of pay and payment of arrears. Defendants contested the suit and broadly denied the plaint allegations and also raised various other pleas including bar of limitation. Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amritsar, vide judgment an decree dated 06.02.2007, held the impugned punishment orders to be null and void, but dismissed the suit being barred by limitation. However, first appeal preferred by the plaintiff has been allowed by learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar, vide judgment and decree dated 21.11.2009 and thereby, suit filed by the plaintiff has been decreed, but arrears, if any, have been restricted to period of 38 months preceding the filing of suit. Feeling aggrieved, defendants have preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Trial court held the impugned punishment orders to be null and void. The defendants did not prefer any cross-appeal or any cross- objections against the said finding of the trial court. Even otherwise, the R. S. A. No. 2237 of 2010 3 punishment orders have been rightly held to be null and void being in violation of the statutory rules. Faced with the aforesaid situation, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that first impugned order is dated 11.11.1993 and the last impugned order is dated 14.01.2000 and the suit was filed on 02.11.2004 i.e. after expiry of limitation period of three years even from the date of last impugned order. In support of this contention, reliance has been placed on judgment of this Court in the case of Guru Dutt vs. Pepsu Road Transport Corporation reported as 2001 (3) RSJ 476. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent-plaintiff contended that by virtue of impugned punishment orders, which are null and void, the plaintiff is suffering loss of salary every month and therefore, there is recurring cause of action and the suit has been rightly held to be within limitation by the lower appellate court regarding arrears of difference of salary for 38 months preceding the filing of suit. In support of this contention, learned counsel for respondent has cited a judgment of this Court namely Malkiat Singh vs. State of Haryana reported as 2007 (4) SCT 801. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. Impugned punishment orders have been held to be null and void. By these punishment orders, increments of the plaintiff were stopped with permanent effect. R. S. A. No. 2237 of 2010 4 Consequently, every month, the plaintiff is getting reduced salary. Therefore, cause of action is accruing to the plaintiff every month when he gets reduced salary. For this reason, the suit of the plaintiff is within limitation qua arrears of difference of salary for 38 months preceding the filing of the suit i.e. three years' limitation period and two months' period of notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This view finds support from judgment of this Court in the case of Malkiat Singh (supra), wherein various judgments were discussed. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant second appeal. Plaintiff's suit has been rightly decreed for arrears of difference of salary for 38 months preceding the filing of the suit. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. April 01, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE