- (1.) This judgment will dispose of R.S.A. No. 1927 of 1997, R.S.A. Nos. 1967, 2083 of 1995, R.S.A. Nos. 3222, 3223 of 1996 and R.S.A. No. 1114 of 1997 as all the appeals raise identical questions of law with regard to limitation prescribed for filing a suit seeking the relief of declaration. Since in all the appeals, the suit has been filed after the expiry of period of limitation, we shall notice the facts only from R.S.A. No. 1927 of 1994 for the purposes of this judgment.
(2.) The plaintiff had filed a suit seeking declaration that the following orders: (i) No. Nill dated 5.3.76 stopping one increment with cumulative effect; (ii) No. 2075-82/TC dated 18.4.77 stopping one increment with cumulative effect; (iii) No. 7617-19/EOC dated 12.9.77 stopping two increments with cumulative effect; (iv) No. 1326 dated 30.6.78 stopping three increments with cumulative effect; (v) No. 1327 dated 30.6.78 stopping three increments with cumulative effect; (vi) No. 19583-88 dated 15.9.78 stopping four increments with cumulative effect; (vii) No. 3344 dated 14.12.78 stopping one increment with cumulative effect; (viii) No. 1860-63 dated 3.12.79 stopping one increment with cumulative effect; (ix) No. 8378-81/T.A. dated 16.3.83 stopping one increment with cumulative effect; (x) No. 54-57/T.A. dated 9.1.84 stopping one increment cumulative effect; (xi) No. 64-67/T.A. dated 9.1.84 stopping one increment cumulative effect; (xii) No. 3374-77/TA dated 23.7.84 stopping two increments with cumulative effect; were null and void as they have been passed in violation of rules of natural justice.
(3.) The respondents had taken a plea that the suit is barred by limitation. The suit of the plaintiff was decreed by the Civil Court. It was held that the orders had been passed in breach of rules of natural justice.;