UMA SHANKER SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a second appeal against the decree dated 28th August, 1980, passed by Sri M. P. Singh, 7th Additional District Judge, Gorakhpur. Uma Shanker Sharma, appellant, instituted a suit against the Union of India, respondent, for declaration that he is a temporary employee having CPC scale of Rs. 260-400 per month with effect from June, 9, 1974 on the post of carpenter in the N. E. Railway and he is entitled to be paid all emoluments and salary attached to that post. He also claimed the relief of injunction to direct the respondent to place him in the said scale and to pay him all the emoluments salary and benefits of the said post. The suit was resisted by the respondent on a number of grounds. It was inter alia pleaded that the suit is barred by time. The learned Munsif (City) Gorakhpur, who tried the suit, accepted this plea and dismissed the suit with costs by judgment dated November 20, 1979. The appellant preferred an appeal against the said judgment and the appeal was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge on August 28, 1980. He affirmed the finding of the trial court that the suit is barred by time under Article 113 of the Limitation Act, hence, this appeal.

(2.) IT has been urged on behalf of the appellant that the suit is within time. According to the plaint allegations the appellant was appointed as casual 'Khalasi' on January 27, ,1973, and worked as such till July 10, 1973. He was subsequently appointed as casual carpenter on July 18, 1973 and continuously worked as such till May 8, 1974 for 180 days and in accordance with the Mia Bhoi Tribunals Award after completion of four months of continuous service he was entitled to get the CPC scale. However, he was not given the said scale and was appointed again on the post of casual carpenter on July 4, 1974 and worked as such till December, 8, 1974 and thereafter no work was entrusted to him and his services were terminated without any order.

(3.) THE contention of the appellant before the lower appellate court was that the cause of action, according to the plaint, arose on May 9, 1974, and the appellant had asked to be placed in CPC scale with effect from June 9, 1974, and finally the cause of action arose, according to him, on December 8, 1974, after which date he was given no work by the respondent. This contention was repelled by the learned Additional District Judge on the ground that the cause of action arose on the date when the appellant was not placed in the CPC scale after completion of 120 days service. THErefore, under Article 113 of the Limitation Act the suit is barred by time.