JAI CHAND SAWHNEY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Jai Ghand Sawhney-hereinafter called, 'the plaintiff-was removed from service under the East Punjab Railway by order, dated 13/10/1949. He sued the Union of India in the court of the Subordinate Judge, Hissar for setting aside the order of removal on the grounds : (i) that the order was made by an authority subordinate to the appointing authority; and (ii) that he was not given an opportunity to show cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to him as required by Section 240 of the government of India Act, 1935. The plaintiff also claimed a decree for Rs. 20,309/9. 00 being the amount of arrears of salary and damages for wrongful termination of employment. The Trial court declared that the dismissal was "illegal and void", and decreed the claim for Rs. 9,735.35 for arrears of salary.

(2.) Against the decree passed by the Trial court the plaintiff and the Union of India appealed to the High court of Punjab. The plaintiff's appeal was dismissed, and in the Union's appeal the decree passed by the Trial court was modified. The plaintiff was awarded arrears of salary for three years prior to the date of the suit. With special leave, the plaintiff has appealed to this court.

(3.) It was held by the Federal court in The Punjab Province v. Pandit Tarachand that the expression "wages" in Article 102 in the Schedule to the Limitation Act includes salary, and therefore a servant of the Crown for arrears of salary is governed by Article 102 of the Indian Limitation Act. That view was reiterated by this court in Shri Madhav Laxman Vaikwllha v. The State of Mysore, it was held that the claim in a suit for arrears of salary due to a servant of the State who was reverted to his substantive rank is governed by Article 102 of the Indian Limitation Act.