UNION OF INDIA Vs. R AKBAR SHERIFF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the Union of India represented by the General Manager, Southern Railway, Madras against the judgment and decree in order Section 10 of 1956 on the file of the court of the Subordinate. Judge, Tiruchirappalli, whereby the Union of India, the defendant in the suit, was directed to pay the plaintiff the sum of Rs. 11,115 with interest thereon at 6 per cent from 18-11954, the date of the plaint together with costs amounting to Rs. 1799-4-0.

(2.) R. Akbar Sheriff, the plaintiff in the suit, presented the plaint on 18-1-1954 on the original side of this court and it was transferred to the City Civil Court, Madras on 22-7-1955, for trial. Before the City Civil Court, the Union of India, the defendant in the suit, raised a preliminary issue that that court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. By order dated 12-10-1955 the city civil court held that it had no jurisdiction and returned the plaint for presentation to the proper court, The plaintiff received the plaint by registered post on 8-12-1955 at Madurai and re-presented the plaint on 12-12-55 before the Sub Court, Tiruchirapalli.

(3.) The plaintiff was employed as the Permanent Way Inspector in the Southern railway and was dismissed from service as and from 1-4-1949. The order of dismissal of the plaintiff from service was because of the plaintiff's conviction Of offences under Sections 420 and 477-A I. P. C. by the learned Asst. Sessions Judge, Mangalore. This conviction was set aside by an order of acquittal passed by this court in CM. R. C, 1442 of 1949 on 25-1-1951. The plaintiff was thereupon reinstated in service on and from 13-7-1951. The present suit was filed for recovery of salary and allowance due to the plaintiff from 1-4-1949 to 13-7-1951 which aggregated to the sum of Rs. 11,115 as the Union of India refused to pay such salary and allowance despite the order of reinstatement in service. The Union of India defended the suit and contended that the plaintiff had no right to claim the arrears of salary and allowance in a court of law, that such payment depended entirely on its discretion, and that in any event the suit claim was barred by limitation. The learned Subordinate Judge Tiruchirapalli who tried the suit overruled the defence put forward by the Union of India and granted a decree in favour of the plaintiff as prayed for with costs. This appeal has therefore been preferred by the Union of India challenging the correctness and legality of that judgment and decree.