Introduction

• This case deals with a residuary provision that is Article 113 of the Limitation act, 1963 and its application.

Facts

• The respondent, who was appointed as an ad hoc sub-inspector in the District Food and Supply Department of Punjab State, was absent from duty starting from 29^th September 1975.
  • On 27^th January1977, his services were terminated.
• On 18^th April 1984, he initiated legal action to declare that the termination order was in violation of natural justice, employment terms, and void, asserting that he still remained in service.
• The state contested the lawsuit, arguing, among other things, that the termination adhered to the terms of the ad hoc appointment, and the suit was time-barred.
  • The Trial Court said that the suit is not filed within a limitation period, leading to the dismissal of the suit.
• However, on appeal, the Additional District Judge ruled that the suit was not barred by time.
  • The judge held that there was no specified time limit for challenging an illegal order, and since the termination order was flawed, the suit was not subject to a time constraint.
• In the subsequent appeal, the High Court stated that if the dismissal, discharge, or termination of an employee's services is unlawful, unconstitutional, or against the principles of natural justice, the employee can approach the court at any time to seek a declaration that they remain in service.
  • HC held that such suits for relief are not bound by the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963.
• Hence, an appeal was preferred before Supreme Court against the judgment of HC.

Issue Involved

• Whether the suit was barred by the Limitation Act, 1963?

Observations

• The SC noted that its role in assessing a plaint presentation is to simply examine whether the plaintiff, based on assumed facts, has filed the suit within the limitation period.
• It is essential for the court to determine when the plaintiff's "right to sue" originated.
• In cases not covered by specific provisions outlining limitation periods, the suit should fall under the residuary provisions.
  • The Court discusses the purpose of the residuary provision and observed that the residuary provision is to provide for cases which could not be covered by any other provision in the Limitation Act.
• Article 113 of Limitation Act, 1963 serves as the residuary provision for cases lacking coverage in other provisions, prescribing a three-year limitation period when the right to sue arises.
  • Furthermore, the court clarified that the right to sue only accrues when the cause of action arises, indicating the right to pursue legal means for relief.
• The lawsuit must be initiated when the right asserted in the suit is violated or when there is a clear and unequivocal threat to violate that right by the defendant.
• Addressing the order of termination, the court outlined that a party contesting the validity of an order must seek relief from the court, requesting a declaration that the order against them is ineffective and not binding.
  • This must be done within the specified limitation period, as the court cannot grant the declaration sought if the statutory time limit has expired.

Conclusion

• Finally, by citing the Allahabad High Court's stance in Jagdish Prasad Mathur and Ors. v. United Provinces Government (1956), the court supported the view that a suit for a declaration by a dismissed employee, asserting the void nature of their dismissal, is governed by Article 120 of Limitation Act of 1908 which is now Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963.