STATE OF MADRAS Vs. A V ANANTHARAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal raises a question of limitation. The facts necessary for a due consideration of that question are these. The respondent was employed as a Sub-Inspector of Police at Orathanad in Tan-jore Dt. till 6-11-1948, on which date seven chargeg-of corruption were framed against him by the appropriate authority and he was placed under suspension. As a result of the enquiry that followed the charges were held proved and the Deputy Inspector General of Police passed the order dated 9-4-1950 dismissing him from service. After exhausting the remedies available to him by way of appeal to the Inspector General of Police and a memorial to the Government, both of which proved futile, the respondent initiated proceedings in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Initially that met with no success as the petition (W. P. No. 844 of 1951) as well as an appeal from the judgment therein (W. A. No. 51 of 1955) were dismissed. The order in the appeal was passed on 1-8-1955. Sometime later, the respondent brought to the notice of the Court by means of a review petition that the officer who submitted the report on the charges did not have the necessary jurisdiction. This Court granted a review of its judgment in the writ appeal as a result of which the order of dismissal was quashed. It may be mentioned that the quashing of the order terminating the services of the respondent was not the result of exoneration of the charges laid against him, but purely on the ground that the order was vitiated by lack of jurisdiction in the particular authority that submitted the report. The judgment of this Court on the review petition was rendered on 22-4-1957. The government then passed an order reinstating the respondent in service. But the respondent could not join duty forthwith owing to an intervening order of the government which however was subsequently cancelled. He did so on 11-7-1957. The charges originally laid against him which were pending were finally dropped on 7-6-1955. By that time the respondent had reached the age of superannuation and he retired from service on 31-10-1957. He was not, however, paid his salary for the period between 6-11-1948, when he was placed under suspension at the commencement of the enquiry and 11-7-1957, when he rejoined duty. The inspector General of Police, informed him that the period in question would be treated as leave without pay and declined to grant him any salary. That order was challenged in this Court by means of W. P. No. 126 of 1959. That petition was dismissed. An appeal therefrom also failed. But the Court left open the question whether the respondent could resort to any other remedy under the law to recover the emoluments he had lost. The respondent then filed the suit out of which this appeal arises on 8-6-1960, claiming the arrears of salary, dearness allowance and house rent allowance after deducting therefrom the subsistence allowance paid to him by the Government. He also included in his claim the interest on the amounts due.

(2.) IT is unnecessary to refer to the various grounds on which the claim was resisted as the only point argued before us by the learned Government Pleader on behalf of the appellant related to limitation. The learned District Judge decreed the claim in part by granting the respondent a decree for Rs. 12,398. 40 np. the arrears of basic salary, and dismissed his claim in regard to the dearness allowance, house rent allowance etc. The State Government has now filed the appeal against that decree. The respondent has followed it up with a memorandum of cross objections claiming the dearness allowance and also the interest on the plaint claim which had been disallowed by the lower Court.

(3.) IT is beyond question that the respondent had the right to institute the suit for recovery oi arrears of salary as he had been dismissed illegally. A claim for salary by a public servant against the Government will be governed by Article 102 of the limitation Act notwithstanding the fact that the- provision is expressed as one "for recovery of wages". That Article 102 will apply to such a case has been held in punjab Province v. Tarachand, AIR 1947 FC 23 : 1947-2 Mad LJ 389. That decision has been accepted by the Sup-reme Court in Madhav Laxman v. State of Mysore, The Article provides for a period of three years from when the salary accrues due. Normally the salary for every month will be payable at the beginning of the next month. But where a public servant had been dismissed or removed, his pay and allowance would cease from the date of such dismissal or removal. That is what is provided in F. R. 52. The question then will arise as to when in such cases, that is, where there has been a dismissal or removal which has been later on set aside as a result of subsequent proceedings the right to recover arrears of salary will accrue or arise. In neither of the two cases cited above was that question raised or considered.