RAM KISHORE SHARMA Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who was a train clerk in the Northern Railway, was placed under suspension on 22 October 1955, and was later removed from service by an order dated 29 December 1955. Ho filed an appeal against his order of removal, which was not disposed of for some time. Thereupon, he filed a writ petition in the Punjab High Court on 10 April 1957, seeking to quash the order of his removal. On 28 November 1959, the Punjab High Court declared the order of removal of the petitioner from service as void, illegal and inoperative. As the petitioner was not given the arrears of his salary for the period between 22 October 1955 and 1 April 1960, on which date he joined the service on formal reinstatement, he moved the Payment of Wages Authority under Section 15 (2) of the Payment of Wages Act for a direction, commanding the Divisional Superintendent, Northern Railway, to pay to the petitioner an amount of Rs. 9. 179 towards the wages withheld for the aforesaid period and an amount of Rs. 91,790 by way of compensation for the deducted wages. The application was resisted by the Divisional Superintendent, Northern Railway, on various grounds. It was contended, inter alia, that the period of the petitioner's absence from duty was treated as leave by the competent authority and the application was barred by time. The Payment of Wages Authority held that the petitioner's application was not barred by time but rejected the application on the ground that he was not untitled to any wages as the period of his absence from duty was treated as leave by an order passed under Para. 2044 (2) of the Indian Railways Establishment Code, Vol. II, the propriety of which could not be determined by him. In appeal, the Additional District Judge, Saharacpur, held that the aforesaid Para. 2044 (2) had no application where the removal is declared to be void, illegal and inoperative; the learned Judge, however, held that the application was barred by time as it was presented beyond the period of six months prescribed by Section 15 (2) of the Payment of Wages Act. According to him, the petitioner had not submitted to the order of removal and regarded himself as continuing in service and hence the wages became due to him on various dates from 22 October 1955 to 1 April 1960. He fortified himself in this view by the decision of a single Judge of this High Court in Sheo Prasad v. Additional District Judge, Moradabad.

(2.) AGGRIEVED by the rejection of his application, the petitioner filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petition was originally heard by Beg, J. , who referred the case to a larger Bench as he felt that the decision in Sheo Prasad case (vide supra) requires reconsideration in the light of certain observations made by the Supreme Court in Divisional Superintendent of Northern Railway v. Pushkar Datt Sharma (1967) 14 I. F. and L. R. 204.

(3.) IT was argued before us by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner could not approach the Payment of Wages Authority until the Punjab High Court declared the order of his removal from service as void, illegal and inoperative, that accordingly the starting point of limitation would be 26 November 1959, the date of the judgment of the High Court, that the application was made within six months of that date and was hence within time. It was also pointed out that the decision in Sheo Prasad case (vide supra) was taken up in special appeal which was still pending and could not be regarded as an authority.