SAHAJANANDHAN Vs. MANAGER S N COLLEGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff is the appellant. Appellant was lecturer in Hindi in T. K. Madhava Memorial College, Naggiarkulangara. He was appointed lecturer with effect from 26-6-1964. It was alleged that the appellant along with some others committed certain irregularities in the conduct of Pre Degree Examination held in March-April, 1966, which led to the suspension of the appellant on 19-7-1966. It seems that the University of Kerala conducted some enquiry and passed an order dated 5-8-1967 to the effect that the appellant and others be relieved from service forthwith, and thereafter the appellant was dismissed from service. The appellant challenged this order before this Court in O.P.No. 1946 of 1976. This Court quashed the order passed by the University by judgment dated 17-6-1969 However, the appellant was not reinstated. Therefore, he filed O.P. 3992 of 1974 and this Court on 26-11-1975 directed the first respondent, the Manager of Sree Narayana College and Secretary S.N. Trust, Quilon, to reinstate the appellant. The appellant was allowed to join duty on 17-12-1975. However, the arrears of salary due to the appellant was not paid. He again filed O.P. 4750 of 1976. This Court directed the first respondent Manager to fix the service benefits of the appellant within three months from the date of judgment. The arrears of salary from 1-9-1972 was paid by the Government as the scheme of direct payment to private college teachers came into existence from that date. However, the salary due to the appellant from 19-7-1966 to 1-9-1972 remains unpaid. The appellant filed the present suit for arrears of salary. The suit was dismissed on the ground of limitation and the appeal is directed against that judgment.

(2.) This being a suit for arrears of salary Art.7 of the schedule of the Limitation Act is applicable. In Art.7 the term "wages" has been used and it is not disputed chat this would also include salary. The question is as to what should be the starting point of limitation. As per Art.7 the period of limitation would be three years from the date when the right to sue accrues. When an employee had been dismissed or removed from service, his pay and allowances would cease from the date of such dismissal or removal. In a case where the dismissal of the employee is set aside, the right to recover arrears of salary would revive. The employee could not have claimed any arrears of salary until he has been ordered to be reinstated. The right to emoluments accrued an the date when the suit was decreed and the starting point of limitation is the date of the decree of the civil court, because prior to the decree the employee would have no right to receive any salary. The Madras High Gouri in State of Madras v. A.N. Anantharaman ( AIR 1963 Mad. 425 ) held that the terminus a quo for the suit under Art.102 (corresponds to Art.7) is the accrual of the salary which by reason of the dismissal had ceased and until a decree holding the order of dismissal or removal to be void is passed by the court, it is not open to the employee to take any steps to recover his salary. Therefore, the right to recover arrears of salary would accrue only after an order of dismissal has been set aside either in a departmental appeal or by a decree in a civil court.

(3.) The same view has been taken by the Supreme Court in Maimoona Khatun v. State of U.P. ( AIR 1980 SC 1773 ). The Supreme Court interpreting Art.102 held as follows:-