JANARDAN MISRA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiffs second appeal in a suit for declaration that the plaintiff's "so-called" resignation dated 4th February, 1964 was null and void, inoperative and illegal and for recovery of Rs. 1,200/- as arrears of pay etc., and for a further declaration that the plaintiff continues in service as House Visitor in the Malaria Eradication Programme and is entitled to his arrears of pay and allowances etc., till such time as the plaintiff is allowed to join his service. The suit was filed on 27th February, 1965 by presenting an application for permission to sue in forma pauperis. It was registered as a suit on 20th December, 1965. The trial Court decreed the suit by saying that the plaintiff is declared to be in service entitled to the arrears claimed and pendente lite and future emoluments, and further that "the impugned resignation and order accepting the same are declared to be illegal, null and void." The lower appellate court allowed in part the appeal filed by the defendant State of Uttar Pradesh and its officers who were the other defendants. The decree of the trial court was modified and the suit was decreed only to the extent that the plaintiff was declared to have continued in service up to 3rd February, 1964 and entitled to get his pay and other emoluments from 25th January, 1964 to 3rd February, 1964 at the rate claimed. The suit was dismissed in all other respects; the parties were directed to bear their own costs of both the courts, but the plaintiff was directed to pay the court-fees payable on the plaint which had been filed by him as an indigent person.

(2.) According to the plaintiff's case he was appointed as House Visitor on 15th December, 1960 at the N. M. E. P. Unit Azamgarh (East) by the Addl. Director of Health and Medical Services, U.P. Lucknow, "through an open competition in which the plaintiff competed successfully." The Anti Malaria Officer, Dr. Kashi Nath Singh, the third defendant, and the Senior Malaria Inspector Sri S. H. Zaidi, the fourth defendant, it was alleged, had been maliciously harassing the plaintiff although his work was praised by other officers. Ultimately on 4th February, 1964 while the plaintiff was going to the office, the Anti-Malaria Officer, Dr. Kashi Nath Singh and the Senior Malaria Inspector. Mr. Zaidi met him on the way and ordered him to sit in their jeep and after showering abuses on him and proceeding to a place near river Tamsa, they demanded his resignation on the spot by show of force and other threats and the plaintiff was forced to write a slip on the dictation of the Senior Malaria Inspector Mr. Zaidi. That letter was wrongly treated to be the plaintiff's resignation. It was obtained by coercion, undue influence and force. A part of it was actually written by Mr. Zaidi. The next day the plaintiff lodged a complaint with the Deputy Director of Malariology, Lucknow, defendant No. 6, "giving the details of the drama played against the plaintiff with the request that he might not be relieved from his service". No reply was received in spite of a reminder. The plaintiff never resigned and his resignation had not "yet been accepted". The "so-called" resignation was no resignation. The plaintiff was forced out of his office and the Anti Malaria Officer and the Senior Malaria Inspector did not allow the plaintiff to do any work. It amounts to the plaintiffs dismissal by an unauthorised person. The so-called resignation has not been accepted by the proper authority. This is followed by the allegation about service of notice under Section 30 of the Code of Civil Procedure, after which, it is said that, the plaintiff received a letter signed by the Anti Malaria Officer accepting the, resignation on behalf of the Deputy Assistant Director of Malaria, and which was said to be illegal for having been accepted from a date prior to 4-2-1964. The date of accrual of the 'cause of action was stated to be the 4th February, 1964, when the resignation was said to have been taken forcibly from the plaintiff and the subsequent dates when the plaintiff was not allowed to perform his duties and lastly en 24th October, 1964 said to be the date of letter, without specifying which letter.

(3.) The defendants filed a common written statement. The defence was that the plaintiff was in temporary service as House Visitor in Anti Malaria Department, that he appeared in LL. B. previous examination in 1963, without taking permission from the department and took leave for the examination period on a false pretext; that when this came to the knowledge of the Anti Malaria Officer, the plaintiff apologised and took permission from the Anti Malaria Officer, Azamgarh, for study and for appearing at the LL. B. final examination, While giving that permission it was made clear to the plaintiff that the government work should not suffer but the plaintiff cared only for his studies and neglected government work; that on 4th February, 1964 when the Anti Malaria Officer along with Senior Malaria Inspector began checking of work in the plaintiff's circle, he the plaintiff, realised that he could not pull on in service, as he had done no work and that his services might be terminated or he may even, be dismissed which would leave a stigma on his future career. The LL. B, final examination was near and the plaintiff hoped to practise law thereafter and the service had no charm for him. In view of these considerations he voluntarily and willingly tendered has resignation which was later on accepted by the "Prescribed Authority." The plaintiff's allegation against the Anti Malaria Officer and the Senior Malaria Inspector was denied and it was stated that they bore no grudge or malice against the plaintiff nor did the Anti Malaria Officer rebuke him, or apply any force on him. The plaintiff was duly informed of the acceptance of his resignation and he handed over charge to another House Visitor. The plaintiff appeared at the LL. B. final examination in April, 1964. He then took training of pleadership and got enrolled in the High Court of Allahabad as pleader, filing, affidavit that he was not in any service. Thereafter he gave the "illegal" notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure and filed the suit with ulterior motive to derive unearned benefit. It was lastly alleged that although, the resignation was to be acted upon from 4th February, 1964 but for the purposes of payment of pay it was made clear that the plaintiff will get it only till 25th January, 1964. An additional written statement was filed after certain amendments were made in the plaint. The allegations of using coercion, undue influence and force against the plaintiff were specifically denied by the Anti Malaria Officer. It was pleaded that the cause of action mentioned in the notice under Section 80, C. P. C. was different from the cause of action alleged in the plaint and the suit was barred under Section 80, C. P. C. as no valid and legal notice was served on the defendants.