D.C. SAHAI Vs. INDIAN AIRLINES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is to the impugned judgment of the trial Court dated 23.1.2002. The trial Court by the impugned judgment dismissed the suit of the appellant/plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 26,240/ - being the claim for conveyance allowance w.e.f. 1.9.1975 to 31.3.1980. The trial Court held the suit to be barred by limitation as the same was filed on 6.3.1989 for the claim of conveyance allowance from 1.9.1975 to 31.3.1980.

(2.) THE trial Court has given the following reasoning to dismiss the suit as being barred by limitation: -

(3.) I cannot agree with the contention as raised on behalf of the counsel for the appellant/plaintiff. Firstly, the recommendations Ex. PW1/7 dated 27.12.1978 and Ex. PW1/8 dated 25.10.1979 were recommendations to the appropriate authority and the same are not the orders sanctioning the payment of conveyance allowance. Thus it is not as if the claims were admitted to be payable at any point of time by the respondent. Further, the counsel for the respondent has drawn the attention of this Court to para 10 of the plaint and the response thereto in the written statement to show that there was no standing order of which averment was made by the appellant/plaintiff in the plaint that a suit could not be filed during the period of employment by the appellant. Admittedly, no alleged standing order was filed/proved that the appellant/plaintiff could not have claimed the conveyance allowance during his services with the respondent/defendant. I may note that the trial Court has also held that though there was a claim of conveyance allowance from 1.9.1975 to 31.3.1980, the appellant/plaintiff had in fact been paid the conveyance allowance for the subsequent years w.e.f. 1.4.1980 till the date of his retirement on 31.5.1986. Clearly therefore no conveyance allowance would have been payable to the appellant/plaintiff and therefore he did not file any suit within the period of limitation for conveyance allowance from 1.9.1975 to 31.3.1980. Merely because the respondent has written one letter rejecting the claim on 19.8.87 cannot mean that the limitation will start afresh though the same expired definitely by 1.4.1983. Not granting the conveyance allowance is a refusal to grant the same especially when nothing has been proved to show that the same was admitted to be payable at one point of time earlier but rejected only vide letter dated 19.8.1987.