R.S.A.No. 1040 of 2007 {1} In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 1040 of 2007 Date of Decision:July 21, 2009 Babu Lal ---Appellant versus Government of Haryana and others ---Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA *** Present: Mr.J.P.Sharma,Advocate, for the appellant Mr. Sukant Gupta, Addl. A.G., Haryana *** SABINA, J. Plaintiff – Babu Lal had filed a suit for declaration challenging orders dated 19.5.1983, 26.7.1983, 14.12.1983 and 17.9.2001. Suit of the plaintiff was dismissed by Additional Civil Judge ( Junior Division), Narnaul vide judgment and decree dated 31.5.2005 on the ground that the suit was time barred. In appeal, the judgment and decree were upheld by District Judge, Narnaul vide judgment and decree dated 9.6.2006. Hence, the present appeal. The facts of the case as noticed by the learned District Judge, R.S.A.No. 1040 of 2007 {2} in paras 2 and 3 of its judgment read as under:- “Plaintiff was working as Patwari with the defendants. He was charge sheeted and consequently, was removed from service vide order dated 14.9.1981. He had filed an appeal. The appeal was accepted. Penalty of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect was imposed ordering that the entire period of the plaintiff when he was out of service was to be treated as leave of the kind due. Plaintiff was taken back in service vide order dated 26.7.1983 of the Collector, Narnaul. Vide order dated 14.12.1983, the S.D.O.(Civil), Mahendergarh had regularized the period w.e.f. 17.1.1981 to 26.7.1983 by granting earned leave with full pay for 96 days and leave without pay for 462 days. It is claimed by the plaintiff that period of pendency of the appeal should have been considered as the one, spent on duty. In short, the plaintiff claimed pay and allowances for the period when the appeal remained pending. The plaintiff had made a representation to the Commissioner, Gurgaon Division Gurgaon which was returned that the same was to be filed before Commissioner, Hissar Division. Order dated 10.9.1994 was made. Consequently, the plaintiff had submitted his representation to the Commissioner, Hissar Division, Hissar but the same was again returned with the remarks that the Commissioner Gurgaon Division had the jurisdiction. Consequently, the plaintiff had submitted the representation to the Commissioner, Gurgaon Division. Vide R.S.A.No. 1040 of 2007 {3} order dated 8.11.1995 Commissioner Gurgaon had referred the matter to the Financial Commissioner (Revenue Department), Government of Haryana. The plaintiff submitted reminders dated 21.7.2001 and 2.8.2004. He was informed on 17.8.2004 that his appeal had been rejected. Against the said order of the Commissioner, the plaintiff had filed an appeal before the Financial Commissioner (Revenue Department), Haryana. The appeal was dismissed on 16.11.2005. In the written statement, the defendants asserting the validity and legality of the impugned orders, had sought dismissal of the suit alleging that it was barred by limitation.” On the pleadings of the parties, trial court framed the following issues:- “(1)Whether the impugned orders dated 19.5.1983, 26.7.1983, 14.12.1983 and 17.9.2001 are illegal, null and void and liable to be set aside as alleged? OPP (2)Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the all consequential benefits and arrears of pay which remain pending i.e. 17.9.1981 to 26.7.1983 with interest @ 18% per annum as alleged? OPP (3)Whether the suit is barred by time ? OPD (4)Relief. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that issue No. 3, whether the suit is barred by time, was treated as preliminary issue. R.S.A.No. 1040 of 2007 {4} However, no opportunity was granted to the plaintiff to lead any evidence in this regard. There is no dispute with regard to the proposition of law that question of limitation is a mixed question of law and facts. However, in the present case, facts are not disputed. Admittedly, plaintiff was removed from service vide order dated 14.9.1981. In departmental appeal, punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect was imposed and the plaintiff was ordered to be reinstated in service. The said order was passed on 26.7.1983. Period of absence from 17.1.1981 to 26.7.1983 was regularized by granting earned leave to the plaintiff. Against the order dated 26.7.1983, plaintiff filed a representation in the year 1994. In these circumstances, the courts below have rightly held that the suit of the plaintiff was time barred as he had failed to challenge order dated 19.5.1983 whereby his services were terminated and order dated 26.7.1983 passed in appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE July 21, 2009 PARAMJIT