Allowed¶37

Haryana State v. Prem Parkash

Punjab & Haryana HC6 May 2025RSA/1954/1998

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

RSA 1954/1998 (O&M), Punjab & Haryana HC, Anil Kshetarpal J, 06.05.2025: limitation for suit declaring retirement order invalid - Art. 58 Limitation Act 1963 (three years from when right to sue first accrues); representations/notices give no fresh cause of action; Sec. 80 CPC notice-period exclusion; State of MP v. Syed Qumarali 1967 SLR 228 distinguished (recovery, not declaration); first appellate judgment set aside, trial court restored; appeal allowed.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; judgment of the First Appellate Court set aside and that of the trial court restored; pending miscellaneous applications disposed of. ¶37

Haryana State Vs Prem Parkash — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal allowed; judgment of the First Appellate Court set aside and that of the trial court restored; pending miscellaneous applications disposed of.

¶37

Issue for consideration

Whether a suit for grant of decree of declaration that the order of retirement from service is invalid can be filed at any point of time or whether it is subject to a period of limitation.

¶15

Court's answer

A suit for grant of decree of declaration is regulated by Article 58 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 and must be filed within three years from the date when the right to sue first accrues.

¶32

Ratio / Principle

Repeated representations and notices made by the retired employee do not give rise to a fresh cause of action for the declaratory suit.

¶32

Key takeaways

At the most, the defendant can claim that the period of notice prescribed under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is required to be excluded in computing the period of limitation.ratio¶32
The precedent relied upon by the respondent (State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Syed Qumarali, 1967 SLR 228) is with respect to a suit filed for recovery and not with respect to declaration, and therefore does not support the proposition that a declaratory suit is free of limitation.ratio¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh; RSA No.1954 of 1998 (O&M); decided 06.05.2025 (Anil Kshetarpal, Judge, oral). The State of Haryana (appellant) assailed the First Appellate Court's judgment, which had partly reversed the trial court's judgment and allowed the first appeal of Prem Parkash, who had sued on 14.02.1989 to declare illegal his retirement (order dated 08.11.1979; relieved w.e.f. 01.01.1980). Sole issue: whether a suit for declaration that an order of retirement from service is invalid can be filed at any point of time or is subject to limitation. Held: such a suit falls under Article 58 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 and must be filed within three years from when the right to sue first accrues; repeated representations and notices do not give rise to a fresh cause of action; at most the notice period under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 may be excluded; the precedent of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Syed Qumarali, 1967 SLR 228, relied on below, concerns a recovery suit and not declaration, and no continuing breaches under Section 22 of the 1963 Act were claimed. First Appellate Court's judgment set aside, trial court's judgment restored; appeal allowed; pending miscellaneous applications disposed of.

¶1

RSA No.1954 of 1998 (O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

RSA No.1954 of 1998 (O&M) Date of Order:06.05.2025

State of Haryana

.Appellant

Versus

Prem Parkash

..Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL

¶11

Present: Ms. Vibha Tiwari, AAG, Haryana

¶12

Mr. Narayan Prasad Gupta, Advocate for the respondent.

¶13

ANIL KSHETARPAL, JUDGE (Oral)

¶14

The State of Haryana assails the correctness of the First Appellate Court's judgment which in turn has partly reversed the judgment of the trial court.

¶15

The only issue which requires adjudication is 'whether a suit for grant of decree of declaration that the order of retirement from service is invalid, can be filed at any point of time or whether it is subject to a period of limitation?

¶16

The detailed facts are not required to be stated because the State did not file first appeal against the judgment passed by the trial court while partly decreeing the suit, however, necessary facts for adjudication of this appeal are required to be noticed.

¶17

The plaintiff claims to have joined as Inspector Consolidation in the State of Pepsu on 20.10.1952 and continued to work till 27.12.1955, as such. Thereafter, he was promoted as Assistant Consolidation Officer on

¶18

NARESH KUMAR 2025.05.08 16:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶19

RSA No.1954 of 1998 (O&M) -2-

¶20

28.12.1955 and continued to work upto October, 1958. Thereafter, he was reverted to the post of Inspector and he crossed the first efficiency bar in the year 1967, however, he was not given certain benefits. After re-organization of the States, the plaintiff (respondent herein) was allocated State of Haryana and on partial winding up of the consolidation department, his services were transferred to the Settlement Department where he worked as Kanungo till 30.09.1969. Thereafter, he worked as Revenue Kanungo. In the month of January, 1980, he was retired at the age of 55 and he filed the suit on 14.02.1989, to declare his retirement as illegal.

¶21

The defendants contested the suit on the ground that the plaintiff sought voluntary retirement vide his application dated 21.08.1978, which was allowed on 08.11.1979.

¶22

The trial court partly decreed the suit, however, refused to declare that the order dated 08.11.1979, is illegal. The plaintiff filed first appeal, which has been allowed.

¶23

While admitting the appeal, the execution of the decree was stayed.

¶24

This Bench has heard the learned counsel representing the parties at length and with their able assistance perused the paper book along with the scanned copy of the requisitioned record.

¶25

The learned counsel representing the State of Haryana has submitted that the suit filed by the plaintiff was filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation and the courts have erred in observing that there is no prescribed period of limitation for filing the suit for declaration.

¶26

Per contra, the learned counsel representing the respondent

¶27

NARESH KUMAR 2025.05.08 16:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶28

RSA No.1954 of 1998 (O&M) -3-

¶29

submits that the order passed retiring the respondent (plaintiff) was non-est in the eyes of law and hence, it was not required to be challenged. He relies upon the judgment passed by a Larger Bench of the Supreme Court in The State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Syed Qumarali, 1967 SLR, 228 .

¶30

The period of limitation for filing the suit for grant of decree of declaration is prescribed under Part-III of the Schedule attached to the Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1963 Act'). Article 58 of the Schedule reads as under:-

¶31

58	To obtain any other	Three years	When the accrues.	right to sue first
	declaration

¶32

It is evident that a suit for declaration is covered by Article 58 of the Schedule attached to the 1963 Act. The statute uses the following expression:- “ when the right to sue first accrues ”. In other words, the suit for grant of decree of declaration regulated by Article 58 of the 1963 Act and it is required to be filed within a period of three years from the date when the right to sue first accrues. In this case, the impugned order retiring the defendant (plaintiff) was passed on 08.11.1979. He was relieved from service with effect from 01.01.1980 and thereafter, he was not in service. He made repeated representations and notices, which would not give rise to a fresh cause of action. At the most, the defendant can claim that the period of notice as prescribed under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is required to be excluded.

¶33

The judgment passed in Syed Qamarali's case (supra) is with respect to a suit filed for recovery and not with respect to declaration. The NARESH KUMARplaintiff also does not claim that there were continuing breaches as provided 2025.05.08 16:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶34

RSA No.1954 of 1998 (O&M) -4-

¶35

under Section 22 of the 1963 Act.

¶36

Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and discussion, the judgment passed by the First Appellate Court is set aside and that of the trial court is restored.

¶37