UNION OF INDIA Vs. YOGENDRASINGH SAHEBSINGH VARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal is against the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge of our High Court in Special Civil Application No. 2496 of 1981. Respondent herein had prayed for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dt. 5-2-1975 passed by the Divisional Mechanical Engineer Western Railway Bhavnagar and for directing the appellants herein to make payment of the emoluments for the intervening period as claimed by him. The learned Single Judge has allowed the petition granting the prayer made by the 1st respondent herein. It is as against this judgment that the present Letters Patent Appeal is filed Mr. R. M. Vin learned Counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the decree in favour of the respondent does not in any way specify as to the payment of salary from the date of the suit uptil the date of the decree that is from 3-9-1968 to 15-3-1971 and hence the discretion as to the payment of such salary for the said period should be left to the Railway Administration as per rule 2044-A of the Railway Establishment Code In this appeal short question we have to decide is as to whether the decree in favour of the respondent makes it clear for the payment of the salary to the respondent during the period from 3-9-1968 to 15-3-1971 which is the date of the suit and the date of the decree respectively. If he decree is the Civil Court has not given this salary to the respondent herein naturally the power to decide payment of such salary has to be left to the discretion of the Railway Administration under rule 2044-A of the Railway Establishment Code To appreciate the contention put forth by Mr. Vin it would be useful to extract the order of the Civil Court in favour of the respondent herein The order runs as follows:-

(2.) We can also usefully extract rule 2044-A of the Railway Establishment Code in order to find out the power of the Railway Administration to decide the pay and allowances of the railway servant in cases where a railway servant is reinstated in service either after dismissal removal or compulsory retirement The rule runs as follows :-

(3.) It is clear from the decree of the Civil Court extracted above that the Civil Court has declared that the plaintiff is deemed to he in service continuously and that he is entitled to his usual pay and allowances admissible under the rules In the next paragraph of the decree the Civil Court has staled that the respondent-plaintiff is entitled from arrears of pay from 14-3-1967 to 2 Mr. Vin. learned Counsel appearing for the appellants pointing out this paragraph. submitted that the Civil Court has granted pay to the respondent only for the period prior to the filing of the suit and as such pay as regards the period during the pendency of the suit has to be left on the discretion of the Railway Administration. In view of rule 2044-A of the Railway Establishment Code. We are afraid we cannot agree with the contention. The prayer of the respondent in the suit for the period prior to the suit has been specifically granted by the decree and as regards his service the Civil Court in an unambiguous terms declared that the plaintiff continues be in service with his usual pay and allowances admissible under the rules. It has also directed the appellants herein to pay ko the plaintiff such emoluments There is absolutely no ambiguity in this decree and the decree clearly reads that the respondent is entitled to his pay and allowances as if he continues to be in service without any dismissal or removal. The learned Single Judge of our High Court has considered all these aspects and observed as follows:-