State Of Haryana & ORS v. Banwari Lal
!"# #$%&%'() *
"!"# !+,!'!!'-".#+& //#00!'"& 1#+&2&
!'3!+%4!0 #&/'-#'"
!
!
" #$"%
$ &'
(& &( ) #$"% $* (+ &( & , $
-$ ../" %
%
&
0$
"$
$ $
"
, #$"% $ 0$
, $
$
&((.% 1 " ../ *
0 $
$ $ " " " "
$ $%
, %
0$
$ #$"%
, $ -$ % % )
0$
$
"
" % % $
% +
!$ " $"
/
-$ " %
1 " % ../
" $ &((. %
-$ 2 % 4$
"# $%&'
( "
)
* 5&((/
5 &63447(.
2 %4$ 8% " $ #$"% $ % "$ $-$" % % "$
" #$"% $, "15. We shall first deal with the first two suits relating to the declaration that the plaintiffs therein are entitled to be placed in the revised scale of pay of Rs.1200 1850/ . The suits filed are for declaration that the order or endorsement dated 13.3.1980 was illegal and void. The suits were filed more than 12 years after the order fixing the revised scale of pay at Rs.940 1850/ . A suit for declaration is governed by Article 58 of the Limitation Act and the period is three years and the terminus au quo is "when the right to sue first accrues".(emphasis supplied) Clearly, the right to seek the relief of declaration that they are entitled to revised scale of pay of Rs.1200 1850/ , accrued to the plaintiffs on 13.3.
1980, when the endorsement in that behalf was made by the Director of Agricultural Services and the plaintiffs were denied revised pay at Rs.1200 1850/ and were paid only at Rs.940 1850/ . It was not the mere making of an order, but an action that had immediate impact on the right of the plaintiffs to recover a higher salary as per their claim. The cause of action thus clearly arose for the first time. Thus the suit for declaration was clearly barred by limitation going by Article 58 of the Limitation Act. The fact that some other officer had been given a decree for the enhanced revised scale, does not furnish the plaintiffs in the first two suits with a fresh cause of action. It is well settled that the time does not stop to run once it has started to run.
the decree in Civil Suit No. 461 of 1991 had absolutely no relevance on this question. Strictly speaking, Civil Suit No. 461 of 1991 also ought not to have been decreed since that suit was clearly barred by limitation, since the order sought to be challenged in that suit of 1991 was also the order dated 13.3.1980. But in view of the decree passed therein, it is not for us now to go into the correctness or otherwise of the decision rendered therein. Suffice it to say that the said decision cannot give the plaintiffs a fresh cause of action. The time started to run when the right to sue first accrued to the plaintiff and that first accrual was clearly on 13.3.1980 and on expiry of 3 years therefrom, the suit for declaration became barred."
!
"
../ "$$
$
( ../$ ","
% $
*
"$ $ 1
" #$"% 2 %4$
*
%+! '
"
"
$
", %
%
../ ! -$ % %
9 $
"" ,
$ " $
* .
:
"#$"%
$
-$ -$ " % " $
:$
$
" $ " 9 $
" " #$"%
$ %
;
" #$"%
$&'
(& &( )
$" $ ",
#$"% $ $"
" "$
" % $
!,)5
kanchan
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No