Skip to content


Dharam Paul Singla Vs. State of Punjab and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLabour and Industrial
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1983)IILLJ319P& H
AppellantDharam Paul Singla
RespondentState of Punjab and anr.
Cases ReferredPritam Singh Gill v. The State of Punjab and Anr.
Excerpt:
.....because the authority making the order had made a default in formally communicating the order to him. allowing a party to do so would amount to placing a premium on the lack of diligence of a party, who is remiss in seeking a remedy that was available to it. therefore, knowledge whether actual or construction of the order passed by the state or regional transport authority should result in commencement of the period of limitation. thus,. in cases where the state or regional transport authority has not communicated the order of refusal passed to the persons concerned, the period of limitation for filing an appeal would commence from the date when the parties concerned acquire knowledge of passing of the said order......the same point by brother tiwana j. in shri charan dass chadha's case (supra) and it was observed that this authority was not relevant and the impugned order was quashed. in the present case also, as observed earlier, the only grievance of the petitioner is against that portion of the impugned order, wherein the condition of non payment of arrears is imposed.6. no other point is urged.7. for the reasons recorded, the aforesaid portion of the impugned order annexure p. 2 is hereby quashed. no order as to costs.
Judgment:

A.S. Bains, J.

1. The petitioner was selected as 'temporary Engineer in the Irrigation Department in the year 195o by the Punjab Public Service. Commission and lie joined in the Irrigation Department on 5th June, 1960 The persons junior to him were promoted as executive Engineer and he was not promoted. He made a representation which was considered and he was promoted as Executive Engineer vide order Annexure P.2 with effect from 29th November,1963 to 17th March, 1968 subject to the condition that no arrears on account of pay and allowances will tie allowed to the petitioner for this period against the post. The grievance of the petitioner is against the condition imposed m this order that no arrears on account of pay and allowances will be allowed for the said period. He made another representation against this order to the authorities which was declined. Thus against this portion of the said impugned order the writ petition has been filed.

2. Reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents.

3. The preliminary objection raised by the counsel for the State is that the writ petition be dismissed as the same is barred by time. The impugned order was passed on 11th May, 1971 whereas the writ petition was filed in the year 1974. I do not find any merit in this preliminary objection. I he petitioner had made many representations to the authorities and he was not conveyed that this representations were considered and only then he filed the present writ petition. As a matter of rule any order passed by the authorities should have been conveyed to the petitioner. But it was only communicated to the Managing Director, Tubewell Corporation.

4. So far as the objection of the petitioner regarding the aforesaid portion of the order is concerned the matter is covered by an authority of this Court reported as Shri Charn Dass Chadha v The State of Punjab and Anr. 1980 (1) S.L.R 702, wherein a similar order was quashed.

5. Mr. K.S. Amol, the learned Counsel for the State referred to a Division Bench authority of this Court cited as Pritam Singh Gill v. The State of Punjab and Anr. 1979 (1) S.L.R. 858, but this authority is not applicable to the facts of the present case. This authority was considered on the same point by brother Tiwana J. in Shri Charan Dass Chadha's case (supra) and it was observed that this authority was not relevant and the impugned order was quashed. In the present case also, as observed earlier, the only grievance of the petitioner is against that portion of the impugned order, wherein the condition of non payment of arrears is imposed.

6. No other point is urged.

7. For the reasons recorded, the aforesaid portion of the impugned order Annexure P. 2 is hereby quashed. No order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //