UNION OF INDIA UOI Vs. C KANNIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant in O. S. No. 681 of 1965 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras, viz,, the union of India represented by the General Manager, Southern Railway, who lost before the trial Judge as well as the first appellate Judge, is the appellant herein. The facts are not in controversy. The respondent was in the service of the Southern Railway as a record sorter and he was suspended from service on 7-91955 on certain charges of criminal conspiracy. The respondent was prosecuted under Sections 120b, 467 and 420 I. P. C. and was eventually convicted of those offences and was sentenced to undergo two years' rigorous imprisonment by judgment dated 4-3-1957. After this judgement in the criminal case was delivered, the appellant dismissed the respondent from services with effect from 21-3-1957. Against this order of dismissal, the respondent preferred W. P. No. 1134 of 1959 on the file of this Court. Meanwhile, the convictions were taken up on appeal and the High Court set aside the convictions and acquitted the respondent of the offences, by an order dated 30-7-1958. In view of the acquittal of the respondent by the High Court, the writ petition itself was allowed and the order of dismissal of the respondent passed by the railway was set aside by an order of this Court on 1-11-1961. After this order was passed, the appellant, reinstated the respondent into the service

(2.) EX. A6, an order dated 2-2-1962, of the General Manager states that the respondent was "reinstated in service as temporary record sorter on pay Rs. 80-110 as (authorised scale) with immediate effect without prejudice to further action" and that the said reinstatement order was made pursuant to the order of the General Manager dated 8-1-1962. Subsequently, another communication was issued by the authorities. This communication dated 7-6-1962, marked Ex. A7, addressed to the respondent states-Consequent on your reinstatement in service with effect from 8-2-1962, vide office order quoted above the intervening period of between the date of dismissal from service and the date of reinstatement (i. e. , 21-3-1957 A. N. to 7-2-1962), has been regularised as duty. However, you will be eligible for pay and allowances for the intervening period subject to the law of limitation. In this connection you are required to give a declaration as to whether you were in employment anywhere during the intervening period and if so, complete details of such employment should be furnisned. In the event of your declaration being found to be false at a later date, please note that you will be liable to be taken up with under the Discipline and Appeal Rules for such false declaration.

(3.) BY a communication dated 28-6-1962, marked as Ex. A8, the respondent informed the railway authorities that his eligibility for pay and allowance for the period 21-3-1957 to 7-2-1962 was not governed by the law of limitation, that for the period between 6-9-1955 and 213-1957 he was under suspension drawing subsistence allowance, that in view of the judgment in W. P. No. 1134 of 1959, he was entitled to full salary during the period between 6-9-1955 and 21-3-1957 also and that, therefore, the railway was bound to pay him, in addition to the arrears of salary for the period between 21-3-1957 and 7-2-1962, full salary for the period between 6-9-1955 and 21-3-1957 also which was not subject to law of limitation. By a communication dated 21-81962, marked as Ex. A 9 the railway informed the counsel for the respondent that sanction for payment of arrears of salary subject to law of limitation was accorded by the competent authority on 22-9-1961 and that the respondent would be entitled to arrears of salary for the back period of three years from 22-9-1961 for which payment was being arranged. The communication further states that the claim for the period beyond three years from 22-9-1961 made on behalf of the respondent would be barred by limitation and that the respondent was not entitled to, and had no manner of right to claim the same. Ex, A10 is an office order dealing with fixation of pay of the respondent for the relevant period. Ex. A3 is a communication dated 8-2-1963, addressed by the railway to the respondent stating that the respondent would be entitled to arrears of salary for a back period of three years from 23-41962, the date on which the competent authority sanctioned payment of arrears subject to law of limitation after deducting the salary received by the respondent from the date of his reinstatement into service, viz. , on 8-2-1962, to the date when the competent authority passed orders, viz. , 23-4-1962 (the date 22-9-1963 mentioned in Ex. A 9 was said to be a mistake ).