Case Study: State of Punjab v. Gurdev Singh, (1991) | Section 113 of the Limitation Act

This case concerns Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which pertains to residuary provisions and its legal implications in application.

Case Title: State of Punjab v. Gurdev Singh

Court: Supreme Court of India

Citation: (1991) 4 SCC 1

Judges: Justice K.J. Shetty,  Justice V. Ramaswami and Justice Yogeshwar Dayal

Facts

The case revolves around applying and understanding Section 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The respondent in this case who was an ad hoc sub-inspector in the District Food and Supply Department of Punjab State failed to attend his duty and was thus registered as absent starting from the date 29th September, 1975. Thereby, as a result, his services were terminated on 27th January 1977.

In response to his termination, he filed a legal suit against the said order of termination on 19th April 1984. The state replied that the appointment was ad-hoc and his termination was valid as per the terms and conditions of the said appointment and that the suit now being filed was time-barred. The Trial Court sided with the state’s argument and thus dismissed the suit because it was outside the purview of time prescribed under the Limitation Act, 1963.

First Appeal - Additional District Judge

However, upon appeal to the Additional District judge, he ruled that the suit was not barred by time as an illegal order can be challenged without any reference to a specified time limit.

Second Appeal- High Court

The High Court also sided with the Additional District Judge’s order and mentioned that an aggrieved person has the right to file suit against illegal termination of his services regardless of any time frame. The said employee must have this opportunity if the said termination is unlawful, unconstitutional, or against the principles of natural justice.

Third Appeal - Supreme Court

The state then approached the apex court seeking relief and clarification regarding the applicability of the time prescribed in the Limitation Act, 1963 to the suit filed by the said employee, beyond the said period.

Issue Involved

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

Arguments

Appellant: The state in the initial and all the subsequent suits that were filed, remained fixated on its stance that the suit was not admissible because it was time-barred in lieu of the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Respondent: The respondent when he had filed a suit against the termination order stated that the said termination violated natural justice and employment terms which thereby made it void. He had asserted that he must remain in service.

Judgment

The Supreme Court stated that it is of utmost importance to first examine whether the plaintiff had the right to sue in the first place. The very first step is to analyse if the plaintiff has filed the suit within the limitation period.

The apex court with the help of the Allahabad High Court’s stance in Jagdish Prasad Mathur and Ors. v. United Provinces Government (1956), reiterated that Section 120 of the Limitation Act of 1908 which has now been incorporated as Section 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963 governs the said situation thereby asserting the void nature of the dismissal of the suit filed.

The court emphasized that if a party is contesting the validity of a termination order, then the same must be within the specified time limit as the court is not in a position to grant the declaration claiming the order to be void, in the case where the statutory time limit has expired. Apex court said,

In the result, we allow the appeals, set aside the judgment and decree of the High Court and dismiss the suit in each case. In the circumstances, however, we make no order as to costs.