Gian Chand v. State of Haryana & Anr.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR Present: None for the appellant. Mr.Sanjeev Kaushik, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. M.M.KUMAR, J. This is the plaintiff's appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the judgment and decree dated

10.9.1986, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ambala, reversing the view taken by the trial Court. The trial Court had decreed the suit of the plaintiff-appellant in his favour but the learned Additional District Judge, dismissed the suit by recording a finding that it was time barred. The learned Additional District Judge had dismissed the suit of the plaintiff- appellant in which he had claimed that the order dated 26.4.1982, passed by the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Ambala, withholding his efficiency bar at the stage of Rs.80/- in the scale of Rs.70-2-80/3-95 with effect from 1.2.1981, was illegal, void, arbitrary and against the relevant mandatory provisions of Punjab Civil Services Rules (as applicable to Haryana) and the Constitution. The consequential relief claimed by the plaintiff-appellant was also declined. R.S.A NO.1128 OF 1987 -2- The substantial question of law which would arise for determination of this Court is 'Whether the suit is time barred and as such not maintainable'. The brief facts of the case necessary for disposal of the instant controversy are that that the plaintiff-appellant joined his service as peon in the Excise and Taxation Department at Ambala Cantonment somewhere in the year 1964. He was to cross efficiency bar with effect from 5.2.1975. He never made any representation that he suffered adverse remarks doubting his integrity in the year 1974-75 and he was not allowed to cross efficiency bar vide order dated 30.1.1976 with effect from

5.2.1975 because he did not have 50% good reports with no adverse remarks regarding his honesty and integrity preceding the last 10 years of passing of the order. As per the requirement of Note-3 below Rule 4.8 Volume-I Part-I of the Punjab Civil Service Rules (applicable to Haryana) a review is required to be held of the old order for re-determining of the eligibility or otherwise of an employee to cross efficiency bar with effect from 1.2.1981. The learned Appellate Court, categorically recorded the finding that the suit was time barred which is discernible from para No.7 of the impugned judgment which reads thus: “The suit of the plaintiff is also time barred as infact the plaintiff was held up at his efficiency bar with effect from 5.2.1975 vide order dated 30.11.1976 passed by the competent authority and conveyed vide memo dated 30.11.1977. Thereafter the matter was reviewed from time to time in accordance with the provision of note 3, rule 4.8 of Punjab Civil Services Rules Vol.I, Parte I. There is a force in the contention of the learned Government Pleader that the impugned order is infact an order passed on renewal of old orders to consider the suitability or otherwise of the plaintiff to cross efficiency bar with effect from R.S.A NO.1128 OF 1987 -3-

1.2.1981. thus the observations of the learned Sub Judge that the impugned is an independent order and gives rise to an independent cause of action is wrong interpretation of law. The learned Sub Judge himself in his discussion over issue No.1 has referred to the other orders on the basis of which the impugned order was passed.” It has come on record that the suit was filed on 29.3.1984, which was directed against the order dated 30.11.1976, withholding the crossing of efficiency bar of the plaintiff-appellant with effect from 1.2.1975. The cause of action had arisen to the plaintiff-appellant on 30.11.1976. At best he could have filed the suit in January, 1980, after period of 3 years 2 months is given. The suit having been filed in the year 1984 is hopelessly time barred and, therefore, could have been entertained by the trial Court. The order dated 1.2.1981 could not be basis for refusal or grant of efficiency bar. It is merely an order passed while reviewing the service record of the plaintiff-appellant. Accordingly, I find that the view taken by the learned Additional District Judge, does not suffer from any legal infirmity and the question of law has to be answered against the plaintiff- appellant and in favour of the defendant-respondent. As a sequel to the above discussion the instant appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.

29.10.2009 (M.M.KUMAR) JUDGE