State of Punjab and Another vs Jagdish Parshad Dresser

M.S. Liberhan, J.—The Plaintiff filed a a suit for declaration, claiming that the order passed by the Defendants accepting his resignation was void and illegal having been secured under duress, fraud, threats and coercion. The Plaintiff is alleged to have resigned on 12.5.1960 which is alleged to have been withdrawn on 28.5.1960. However, the resignation was accepted on 30.5.1960. The Plaintiff made a representation against the illegal acceptance of the resignation which was kept pending and the Plaintiff was expressly conveyed that justice will be done to him but finally the representation was rejected on 5.4.1980, declining the relief.

The Defendants contested the suit and controverted the above-said facts. Further plea of the suit being barred by limitation was raised. The following issues were framed:

Whether the resignation submitted by the Plaintiff was under threat, duress and coercion and its acceptance by the competent authority on 14.5.1960 is illegal, void and ineffective qua his rights ? O. P. P. 2. Whether the suit is within limitation O. P. P-

Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ? O.P.D

Whether the Plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit by his act and conduct ? O P. D.

Whether this Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain are try the suit ? O. P. P.

Whether the Plaintiff served a valid notice u/s 80, C. P. C. on the State ? If so. its effect ? O. P. P.

Whether the suit has not been properly valued for purpose of court fee and jurisdiction ? O. P. D.

8 Relief.

The trial Court came to the conclusion that since the resignation was accepted with retrospective effect even after the same had been withdrawn, consequently the resignation did not have any valid effect and its acceptance was illegal. The suit was found to be within limitation and maintainable in the present form. It was found that the Plaintiff was not estopped from filing the suit, the Court had the territorial jurisdiction and a valid notice u/s 80, Code of Civil Procedure, served, and the suit was properly valued. Consequently, the suit was decreed.

The State of Punjab preferred an appeal. The lower appellate Court, however, on appreciation of the evidence and taking into consideration the circumstances like the alleged version having been put to the Plaintiff after twelve days and he having not mentioned that the resignation was secured on a blank paper and further comparing the resignation in which the body of the writing was written by the Plaintiff himself, came to the conclusion that the resignation had not been secured by the State of Punjab under duress. Yet, the lower appellate Court came to the conclusion that the resignation was accepted with retrospective effect after the withdrawal of the same, the acceptance is void illegal and is not enforceable in the eye of law. Findings on no other issues were challenged by the State of Punjab. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

In this regular second appeal, the learned Counsel for the State has only challenged the finding on issue No. 2 and contends that since the Plaintiff has challenged the order of acceptance of resignation dated 30.5.1960, the suit could be brought within six years of the acceptance of the resignation. In my opinion, the Appellant cannot be permitted to raise the plea of limitation which is a mixed question of fact and law in this regular second appeal. The State had not pressed the issue either before the trial Court or before the lower appellate Court. Apart from this, the Plaintiff has claimed the relief against the rejection of the representation dated 9.4.1980, and has averred in the plaint in categorical terms that on various representations the State has been making him understand that justice would be done. The justice was too obvious that the re ignation would have been accepted with retrospective effect, in particular when the same had been withdrawn before its acceptance. It was callous on the part of the State to make him wait for the decision of his representations for more than two decades. Plaintiff cannot be made to suffer on account of the inactivity of the State. The Plaintiff has categorically stated that the cause of action had arisen to him on 4.8.1980 and the suit having been filed within limitation, the same is not barred as the State has been acknowledging the right of the Plaintiff, of his representation being accepted.

Alternatively undisputedly, since the order has been passed, accepting the letter of resignation, with retrospective effect, it is a void order. There cannot be any limitation for setting aside the void order. In this behalf, the Respondent relies upon Mohinder Singh v. Punjab State 1977 S. L. W. R. 447, Man Singh v. The State of Punjab 1979 S. L. W. R. 98 and Amrik Singh v. The State of Punjab 1980 (2) S. L. R. 616. It has been observed in the above judgments that there is no limitation for setting aside the void orders. The facts and the law laid down in the said judgments squarely covers the facts and circumstances of this case

In view of the above fact and circumstances, I find no force in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed with special costs. Costs are assessed at Rs. 1,000/-.