VASUKI AMMAL Vs. R JOSEPH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff is the appellant before me. She filed a suit for recovery of a Rs. 6326. 62 being the arrears of salary payable to her. THE facts leading to the said suit as follows: THE appellant/plaintiff was appointed as a Secondary Grade teacher 7. 10. 1968. On 21. 1. 1971 her services were terminated. Against the said termination service, the appellant filed an appeal to the District Educational Officer. By an order 1. 6. 1971, exhibited as A-1, the termination was set aside and there was a direction reinstate the appellant in service. Against the said order of the District Educational the respondent school filed an appeal to the Chief Educational Officer. By an order 17. 11. 1971 (Ex. A-2) the order of the District Educational Officer dated 1. 6. 1971 confirmed. THEreafter, there seems to have been some representations to the director School Education which were rejected on the ground that no further appeal was maintainable before the Director of School Education. THErefore, in effect, the final order departmental proceedings was the order of the Chief educational Officer dated 17. 11. 1971. Though the appellant was making representations ultimately she was reinstated only 7. 8. 1973. After adjusting certain payments, she laid a claim for Rs. 6326. 62 on 26. 7. 1976 being the arrears of salary for the period 21. 1. 1971 to 7. 8. 1973. THE defence respondent was that three months salary was received in full quit of the claim of the and in any event, the suit was barred by limitation. THE trial court decreed the prayed for. On appeal, the decree has been modified restricting the decree only for month of July, 1973 and for seven days in August, 1973. According to the appellate the claim for the earlier months was barred by limitation. THE appellate court held that cause of action arises from the date of the order of reinstatement made by the educational Officer on 1. 6. 1971. THE salary for the month of July, 1973 being payable 1st of August 1973, the appellate court held that only the salary for july, 1973 and 1973 was in time. This is because the suit was filed on 26. 7. 1976.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner argues that the article under which the claim should considered in Art. 7 of the Limitation Act. That Article is as follows: LEARNED counsel for the respondent says that a perusal of the plaint suggests that was one for damages and, therefore, Art. 55 alone will apply. Art. 55 is as follows: I am inclined to hold that only Art. 7 is applicable to the facts of the case because though word damages' ; has been used in the plaint, in substance the suit is for arrears of reading of the entire plaint shows that it is a case of claim for arrears of salary. Further, not think that there is much difference between the two Articles. Under Art. 7, the limitation starts running from the date when the wages accrue due. Under compensation for breach of contract, the period of limitation starts running from the the breach of contract. It has been held that in matters of employment, the employee file a suit unless and until the order of dismissal is set aside by a competent Otherwise, any suit will be dismissed in limine on the ground that his services terminated and therefore, the question of payment of salary would not arise.