IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA 2023 of 2006 DATE OF DECISION : JANUARY 11, 2008 JADAV SINGH ....... APPELLANT(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. GPS Bal, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.Anil Sharma, Sr.DAG, Punjab. AJAI LAMBA, J. This Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiff against the judgment of affirmance. Before adverting to the facts, learned counsel for the respondent-State has pointed out that a specific issue, the same being issue No.3, was framed as to whether the suit was barred by time. The issue has been dealt with in paras 19 to 24 of the judgment rendered by the first appellate court. The challenge in the suit was to the order of dismissal dated 10.1.1994. The suit, admittedly, was filed on 8.12.1998. The first appellate court has referred to a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in S.S.Rathore v. State of Madhya Pradesh, III-1990(1) All India Services Law Journal 98. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has cited another RSA 2023 of 2006 2 judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State of Punjab and others v. Gurdev Singh and another, AIR 1992 Supreme Court 111. In Gurdev Singh's case (supra), the suit was filed for declaration that an order of dismissal or termination from service was wrongful and illegal. It has been held in para-11, in the following terms:- “.......... A suit for declaration that an order of dismissal or termination from service passed against the plaintiff is wrongful, illegal or ultra vires is governed by Art.113 of the Limitation Act. The decision to the contrary taken by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in these and other cases (State of Punjab v. Ajit Singh (1988)1 Serv LR 96 and (ii) State of Punjab v. Ram Singh (1986) 3 Serv LR 379) is not correct and stands overruled.” In para-8 of this judgment, it has been held as under:- “8. It will be clear from these principles, the party aggrieved by the invalidity of the order has to approach the Court for relief of declaration that the order against him is inoperative and not binding upon him. He must approach the Court within the prescribed period of limitation. If the statutory time limit expires the Court cannot give the declaration sought for.” Since the date when the cause of action arose and the date when the suit was filed are not in dispute, I do not find any legal infirmity in the judgments passed by the courts below. No law to the contrary has been cited. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. January 11, 2008 ( AJAI LAMBA ) JUDGE