The suit has been decreed, by the trial Court, which decree has been maintained in first and second appeals.
A civil suit filed more than 16 years after the date of the accrual of the cause of action was clearly barred by time.
However, on 1.8.1980, the Government of India prom ulgated a fresh scheme, known as Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 in place of the 1972 Scheme.
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 1972 Scheme and companysequently directed adjustment of excess payment against the pension due and payable w.e.f.
2003 Supp 3 SCR 728 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.C. LAHOTI, J. Leave granted.
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 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 numberuncertain terms made it clear that his entitlement to pension was only w.e.f.
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.
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 number eligible shall be liable to be adjusted against future payments.
The decree companyld number have been maintained by the first appellate Court or the High Court.
5,000.
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.
On 7.11.1978, the Government of Punjab intimated the Central Government that the annual income of Punjab Singh exceeded Rs.
1.8.1980 and the payment made earlier was liable to be adjusted against the pension due and payable under its order dated 24.9.1980.
The submission made by the learned companynsel for the appellants is that the suit filed by the respondent was hopelessly barred by time and, therefore, companyld number have been decreed.
1.8.1980, the date on which the new scheme was promulgated in supersession of the earlier scheme and whereunder only the respondent became entitled to the grant of pension.
It is also submitted that the respondent was ineligible for payment of pension under the 1972 Scheme and the Government of India has number erred in releasing the pension w.e.f.
The Government of India, vide its letter dated 26.12.1978, suspended the release of pension to the respondent.
Under the new scheme the ceiling on annual income as one of the eligibility companyditions was waived.
1.1.1989.
The respondent showed his total income from agriculture to be Rs.
The State Government recommended his case for the grant of pension and the same was released w.e.f.
2,500 per annum.
5,000.
The issue as to the verification of his annual income was taken up afresh.
The Union of India has filed this appeal by special leave.
15.8.1972.
Punjab Singh, the respondent No.l, 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 companyditions was that the applicants annual income from all sources companybined should number exceed Rs.
