UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.versusPUNJAB SINGH AND ANR.

A                       UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
                                   v.
                         PUNJAB SINGH AND ANR.

                            SEPTEMBER 15, 2003

B                 [R.C. LAHOTI AND ASHOK BHAN, JJ.]

         Limitation Act, I 963 : Section 3:

         Limitation-Prescribed period of-Suit filed after expiry ofperiod of
C limitation-Trial court decreed the suit-Decree maintained in first and
    second appeals-Validity of-Held: Trial court bound to dismiss a suit
    filed after expiry of period of /imitation-Hence the decree set aside--
     Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme, 1972-Swatantrata Sainik Samman
     Pension Scheme, 1980.

D        The respondent was granted freedom fighters pension under the
    Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme, 1972. Subsequently, as the re-
    spondent's annual income exceeded the limit fixed under the said
    scheme the appellant suspended the release of the pension to the
    respondent.
E        However, the appellant promulgated a new scheme known as the
    Swatantrata Sainik Sam man Pension Scheme, 1980 in place of the 1972
    scheme. Under the new scheme, the ceiling on annual income as one
    of the eligibility conditions was waived.

F         Thereafter, the appellant issued a fresh grant of pension in favour
    of the respondent under the new scheme with the stipulation that the
    excess amount drawn by him when he was not eligible was liable to
    be adjusted against future payments. Being aggrieved the respondent
    filed a civil suit which was decreed by the trial court. The decree was
G   maintained in first and second appeals. Hence this appeal.

         On behalf of the appellant, it was contended that the suit was
    barred by time, under Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and,
    therefore, the suit could not have been decreed.

H        Allowing the appeal, the Court
                                   728
                U.0.1. v.PUNJAB SINGH [LAHOTI, J.]                   729

     HELD : I.I. A civil suit filed more than 16 years after the date A
of the accrual of the cause of action was clearly barred by time. Under
Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the trial Court was bound to
dismiss the suit as having been filed after the prescribed period of
limitation. The decree could not have been maintained by the first
appellate Court or the High Court. (730-G-H)                            B
      1.2. A decree passed in clear breach of the mandate of Section 3
of the Act cannot be allowed to be sustained when specifically objected
to on this ground. (731-BJ

     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7360 of C
2003.

    From the Judgment and Order dated 23.1.2002 of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court in R.S.A. No. 1026 of 2000.

     Hemant Sharma and Ms. Sushma Suri for the Appellants.
                                                                           D

    Ranbir Yadav, R.S. Suri and Rishi Malhotra for M.S. Dahiya for the
Respondents.

     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                            E
     R.C. LAHOTI, J. : Leave granted.

      Punjab Singh, the respondent No. I, applied for the grant of Freedom
Fighters Pension under the Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme 1972 framed
by the Government of India. One of the eligibility conditions was that the F
applicant's annual income from all sources combined should not exceed
Rs. 5,000. The respondent showed his total income from agriculture to be
Rs. 2,500 per annum. The State Government recommended his case for the
grant of pension and the same was released w.e.f. 15.8.1972. On 7.11.1978,
the Government of Punjab intimated the Central Government that the G
annual income of Punjab Singh exceeded Rs. 5,000. The Government of
India, vide its letter dated 26.12.1978, suspended the release of pension to
the respondent. The issue as to the verification of his annual income was
taken up afresh. However, on 1.8.1980, the Government of India prom-
ulgated a fresh scheme, known as Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension H
    730                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A Scheme, 1980 in place of the 1972 Scheme. Under the new scheme the
    ceiling on annual income as one of the eligibility conditions was waived.

          On 24.9.1980, the Government of India issued a fresh grant of
    pension in favour of the respondent directing release of pension w .e.f.
B   1.8.1980 under the new scheme and at the same time directing that the
    amount drawn by him during the period when he was not eligible shall be
    liable to be adjusted against future payments. On 23 .11.1996, the respond-
    ent filed a civil suit laying challenge to that much part of the order dated
    24.9.1980 which upheld his ineligibility for the grant of pension under the
C   1972 Scheme and consequently directed adjustment of excess payment
    against the pension due and payable w.e.f. 1.1.1989. The suit has been
    decreed. by the trial Court, which decree has been maintained in first and
    second appeals. The Union of India has filed this appeal by special leave.

          The submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants is that
D the suit filed by the respondent was hopelessly barred by time and,
    therefore, could not have been decreed. It is also submitted that the
    respondent was ineligible for payment of pension under the 1972 Scheme
    and the Government of India has not erred in releasing the pension w .e.f.
     1.8.1980, the date on which the new scheme was promulgated in supersession
E   of the earlier scheme and whereunder only the respondent became entitled
    to the grant of pension. We find force in the submission so made.

         Without going into the merits of the plea whether the respondent was
  justified in staking the claim for pension for a period anterior to 1.8.1980,
  the date on which he became entitled for pension on account of new scheme
F having been promulgated, suffice it to say that the cause of action, if any,
  had arisen to the respondent on 24.9.1980 itself when the appellant
   emphatically and in no uncertain terms made it clear that his entitlement
  to pension was only w.e.f. 1.8.1980 and the payment made earlier was
   liable to be adjusted against the pension due and payable under its order
G dated 24.9.1980. A civil suit filed more than 16 years after the date of the
  accrual of the cause of action was clearly barred by time. Under Section
  3 of the Limitation Act 1963, the trial Court was bound to dismiss the suit
   as having been filed after the prescribed period of limitation. The decree
   could not have been maintained by the first appellate Court or the High
H Court.




                                                                                   J-
                U.O.I. v.PUNJAB SINGH [LAHOTI, J.]                  731

      The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that in a case of A
freedom fighters pension this Court, in its jurisdiction under Artide 136
of the Constitution, ought not to interfere with the decree passed by the
courts below and upheld by the High Court. We find no merit in the
submission so made with passion and fervency. A decree passed in clear
breach of the mandate of Section 3 of the Limitation Act cannot be allowed B
to be sustained when specifically objected to on this ground. Secondly, we
find no reason to take a sympathetic view on the claim of the respondent
inasmuch as he, being a former railway police employee, did not disclose
his pension and misstated his agricultural income as Rs. 2,500 only which
was, on enquiry, found to be not less than Rs. 4,800 and with the amount
of pension added to the agricultural income the respondent was found to C
be ineligible for the benefit of the 1972 Scheme.

      The appeal is allowed. The decree of the trial Court, though upheld
in first and second appeals, is set aside. The suit filed by the respondent
Punjab Singh is directed to be dismissed. However, no order is made as D
to the costs.

V.S.S.                                                 Appeal allowed.