IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT, AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.2337 of 1987 Decided on March 17,2008 State of Punjab -- Appellant. v. Jagrup Singh -- Respondent. Present: Mr. B.S Chahal, DAG,Punjab. None for the respondent. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J:(Oral) The defendant-State of Punjab, is in Regular Second Appeal before this Court against the judgment of reversal. The plaintiff, who is employed as a Conductor in Punjab Roadways, Nawanshahr filed a suit on 1.3.1984, seeking declaration to the effect that orders Nos. 2782-85/TC dated 11.3.1977,11889/90/TC dated 16.11.1977, 16357/TA dated 17.12.1979, 2277/ST/ GM dated 29.1.1981 and 4102/TC dated 27.2.1981 passed by General Manager ,Punjab Roadways, Nawanshahr ,vide which annual increments of the plaintiff were withheld with cumulative effect are illegal and against the rules. In the suit, it was claimed that the impugned orders were illegally passed as there was no charge-sheet issued to the plaintiff and no departmental enquiry was held in consonance with Civil Services Rules. RFA No.2337 of 1987 -2- In the written statement, allegations made in the plaint were controverted and the suit was challenged on the ground that it is barred by limitation. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration and the orders dated 11.3.1977,16.11.1977, 17.12.1979, 29.1.1981 and 27.2.1981 are illegal, null and void ? OPP 2. Whether the suit is barred by limitation ? OPD 3. Whether the suit is not properly valued for purpose of court fee ? OPD 4. Whether the notice u/s 80 C.P.C.was served upon the defendant ? OPP 5. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD 6. Relief: Vide its judgment and decree dated 24.11.1984, the trial Court concluded that while passing the impugned orders, the punishing authority did not act according to the provisions of law, but dismissed the suit on the ground that the impugned orders have been challenged after a lapse of limitation and, therefore, the plaintiff is too late to seek any remedy. The plaintiff filed the first appeal in which the first Appellate Court had noticed that issue No.1 was decided in favour of the plaintiff and it was held that the orders dated 11.3.1977, 16.11.1977, 17.12.1979, RFA No.2337 of 1987 -3- and 27.2.1981, were illegal as no departmental enquiry was held by the punishing authority, whereas order dated 29.1.1981 was held to be validly passed. Since the suit was dismissed only on the point of limitation, argument was raised before the first Appellate Court that since the aforesaid orders were illegal and were not passed in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Services (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, therefore, they are void orders and relied upon the decision in the case of State of Punjab v. Ram Singh 1986 (3) S.L.R. 379, wherein it was held that void order is no order in the eyes of law and there is no limitation for challenging the same. On the aforesaid basis, the first Appellate Court allowed the appeal and suit of the plaintiff qua orders dated 11.3.1977, 16.11.1977, 17.12.1979 and 27.2.1981 was decreed holding that these orders have no force in the eyes of law. I have heard leaned counsel for the appellant-State and perused the record. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that even if there is void order, it has to be challenged within the prescribed period of limitation and the decision rendered in Ram Singh's Case (Supra), does not hold field in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of State of Punjab and others v. Gurdev Singh, Ashok Kumar A.IR. 1991 Supreme Court, 2219, vide which the judgment in Ram Singh's Case (Supra) has categorically been overruled. The decision in Gurdev Singh's Case (Supra), was followed in the case of State of Punjab and RFA No.2337 of 1987 -4- others v. Rajinder Singh, Conductor, 1999 Supreme Court Cases (L& S) 664. In that case, a suit for declaration was filed against the order of stopping of two increments with cumulative effect. Limitation period under Articles 58 and 103 of the Limitation Act, is ordered to run from the date of order which was dated 10.12.1981,but the suit was filed on 15.1.1988 . Relying upon the decision in Gurdev Singh's Case (Supra), it was held that the suit is barred by limitation. On these premises, the following question of law arises in this appeal as to “whether there is limitation to challenge the order which is even void or void order can be challenged at any time” ? In view of the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court in Gurdev Singh's Case (Supra) and Rajinder Singh's Case (Supra), there is no room for any doubt that there is limitation even for challenging the void orders and the same cannot be challenged at any time beyond the period of limitation. Since the judgment of the first Appellate Court is based upon Ram Singh's Case (Supra) which has categorically been over ruled in Gurdev Singh's Case (Supra), this Court is of the view that this appeal deserves to be allowed and the question that has been raised by the appellant has to be answered in his favour. In view of the above, the present appeal is allowed and the judgment of the first Appellate Court is set aside and that of the trial Court restored. It is held that since the suit has been filed beyond the period of limitation, the plaintiff has no right to seek any remedy from the Court of RFA No.2337 of 1987 -5- law. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. March 17 ,2008 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge Fit for indexing: Yes/No.