UNION OF INDIA Vs. T. L. DAKSHINAMURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Union of India owning the Southern Railway and represented by its General Manager, who was the unsuccessful defendant in O.S. No. 5079 of 1967 on the file of the City Civil Court Madras, is the appellant. The plaintiff, a permanent employee in the Southern Railway, was placed under suspension on and from 8 -5 -1950 on certain charges levelled against him. Ultimately, under Ex. B 1, dated 15 -6 -1950 the plaintiff's services were terminated with effect from the afternoon of 22 -6 -1950. He was given a month's salary in lieu of notice in accordance with the terms and conditions of the service. The plaintiff took up the matter in appeal before the Railway Board, but was not successful. Thereafter on 7 -7 -1953, he filed a suit O.S. No. 335 of 1956 seeking for a declaration that the order dated 15 -6 -1950 and contained in Ex. B1 was illegal and for setting aside the order and for arrears of salary as also for future salary. Under Ex B 27, the trial Judge dismissed the action. The plaintiff took up the matter in appeal C. C. C. A. No. 93 of 1957. Basheer Ahmed Sayeed, J. allowed the appeal and decreed the suit. It is relevant to extract the decree in the City Civil Court appeal. It has been exhibited in the trial court as Ex. A. 1. The relevant portion of the decree runs as follows:

(2.) IN the present suit, the plaintiff claimed a sum of Rs. 15300.65 for arrears of salary upto 27 -8 -1959. Obviously, this is so made because the plaintiff joined duty on 27 -8 -1959. The plaintiff also claimed interest and sought for a decree, basing his cause of action on 22 -6 -1950, when his services were unlawfully terminated, on 25 -2 -1959, when Basheer Ahmed Sayeed, J., allowed the appeal, holding the order of termination of service as void, on 27 -6 -1960 when under Ex. A -2, the defendant wanted the plaintiff to await the result of the Letters Patent appeal by then filed by the Union of India, and on 29 -9 -1961, when the Letters Patent appeal was disposed of. The defence to the action was mainly based on the bar of the claim under the statute of limitations. According to the defendant, there was no acknowledgment of any liability to pay the arrears of salary from 8 -7 -1953 at any time and that Ext. A -2 does not project any such acknowledgment as averred by the plaintiff and that, therefore, the claim is barred by limitation. The defendant denied liability to pay the interest and denied the express allegation made that the defendant practised fraud on the plaintiff. As we said the main plea is one of limitation. The learned Judge framed the following issues: -

(3.) THE sole question urged before me is that the suit originally filed in this court as a pauper in 1964 is barred by limitation, in that the claim made therein for salary for the period 8 -7 -1953 to 28 -8 -1959 is beyond three years from the date when such salary accrued due. On the other hand, it is stated that a fresh cause of action was created under Ext. A -2 and that the respondent was restrained from instituting an action on the representations made by the defendant under Ext. A -2 and that, therefore, the date of judgment in the Letters Patent Appeal, namely, 29 -9 -1961, gave a fresh cause of action to the suit and thus calculated the suit filed on 4 -9 -1964 was in time.