UJAGAR SINGH GILL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiff's appeal. His suit for recoveryof Rs. 18.000.00 towards arrears of his salary and interest thereon was dismissed by the Commercial Sub- Judge, Delhi, principally on the ground that theclaim was barred by limitation.

(2.) The facts are in brief. The plaintiff was appointed as DistrictRent and Managing Officer-cum-Assistant Custodian in the office of therespondents-defendants and was posted at Ludhiana. There were threedefendants (now respondents), first defendant being Union of India throughthe Secretary in the Department of Rehabilitation, the second defendantbeing the Chief Settlement Commissioner, New Delhi; and the third defendantwas the Regional Settlement Commissioner, Jullundur. The servicesof the petitioner were terminated on 23/05/1960. He, however, came toknow about this fact on 30/05/1960. On 19/12/1961 he filed a suitfor declaration challenging his termination. The suit was decreed in hisfavour on 28/02/1963 and subsequent appeals to the District Judge aswell as the High Court of Punjab were dismissed. The judgment and decreein the suit for declaration became final on 29/02/1964 when the HighCourt dismissed the second apdeal. Thereafter, the plaintiff was reinstatedand came to be posted at Jullundur on 27/04/1965. He made claim forhis salary for the period from 30/05/1960 till 26/04/1965. After hisrepresentations he was told by the defendants that his case was under consideration and that further communication would follow. On 4/05/1967the plaintiff was informed that the President was pleased to accept the periodfrom 31/05/1960 to 26/04/1965 as on duty subject to the conditionsthat (1) the plaintiff, would be paid arrears of pay and allowances for threeyears; (2) whatever he earned in the legal profession as a lawyer between theperiod of his termination and reinstatement would be deducted from thearrears of his salary; and (3) he would give his affidavit of that income duringthat period. Then plaintiff was paid pay and emoluments for three yearsperiod mentioned above and a sum of Rs. 2.600.00 was deducted being hisincome from lawyer's profession. It may be stated that during the periodfrom the termination of his services and till he was reinstated the plaintiffwas practising as an Advocate. Again the plaintiff represented and said heshould be paid his salary for whole of the period. Then he served a noticeunder Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 1 7/11/1969. Hesaid although his termination was found to be wrongful and illegal he wasmade partial payment for three years period from 27/04/1962 to 2 6/04/1965 and that his salary for the period from I June, 1960 to 26/04/1962had been wrongfully withheld. The plaintiff also claimed refund ofRs. 2,600.00 which had been deducted from his salary and emoluments payableto him for the three years period. He, therefore, claimed Rs. 12,198.98on account of arrears of salary and wrongful deduction of Rs. 2,600.00. Theplaintiff also in this notice claimed interest of the rate of 6/o per annum onthe amount of Rs. 9,598.98 being the arrears of his salary. He also claimedinterest on the amount of Rs. 2,600.00 on equitable grounds. He said causeof action arose in his favour when he was reinstated, and again when he wastold that his case for payment of salary, etc., was under consideration andyet again when he was told that he would be paid the arrears for three yearsby letter dated 4/05/1967, and lastly, in the year 1968 when his salary forthe earlier period was in fact refused.

(3.) Plaintiff then filed this suit on 29/01/1970. The defendantsfiled their written statement. They said the suit was barred by limitation asthe cause of action for recovery of salary accrued month to month. Theysaid the order of the Court declaring the order of termination of services ofthe plaintiff as illegal was of no consequence and that would not save limitation. It was also said that suit against defendants 2 and 3 was not maintainable as they were not juristic persons. Receipt of the notice under Section80 of the Code of Civil Procedure was admitted and so also the fact ofamount due to the plaintiff towards salary for the period from I June 1960to 26/04/1962 was admitted and also the fact of deduction of Rs. 2600.00from the salary paid to the plaintiff after his reinstatement. Claim ofinterest was denied.