E A S RAMAKRISHNA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the original plaintiff against the dismissal of his suit by the learned Judge of the Bombay City Civil Court on 31st of October, 1960. The plaintiff had filed this suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,030.19, which according to him has been wrongfully deducted from his salary as and by way of "supervisory element" and for the recovery of a further sum of Rs. 3,972.44 in respect of the charge allowance payable to him, and for certain declarations ancillary thereto. The facts of the case are that the plaintiff was employed as a clerk in the General Stores Inspection Department of the Army, that pursuant to the election given to him the plaintiff opted for the unified scale of pay and a unified scale of pay on the scale of Rs. 100-10-200 was accordingly adjusted as far as he was concerned and that in or about June, 1947 it was provided by a corrigendum to the earlier Army instructions that in the case of personnel whose rate of pay was Rs. 5/- to 7/- per day, a deduction of Rs. 40/- per month should be made in respect of the suppresser element so long as the pay after deduction would not be less then Rs. 100/- per month. The authorities however later on decided, and a communication in that behalf was sent to all concerned, that no recovery should be made on account of the deduction on the supervisory element upto 30th June, 1947 but inspite of those instructions the plaintiff's pay was reduced to that extent with effect from 1st September, 1944. The first made of the plaintiff's claim was, therefore, for this alleged wrongful deduction for the period form 1st September, 1944 to 30th June, 1947 aggregating to Rs. 1,030.19.

(2.) The facts in respect of the second head to the plaintiff's claim were that, in or about September, 1945, the Government of India introduced the grant of charge allowance to civilian personnel with effect from 1st May, 1945, and provided that a clerk was to be designated "Head Clerk" and was to be eligible for a charge allowance of Rs. 50/- per month, if he was in actual independent charge of 12 to 25 clerks but was to be designated as "Assistant Head Clerk", and was to be eligible for a lower charge allowance of Rs. 25/- per month if he was in charge of 10 clerks. The plaintiff's case is that he was in charge of 10 clerks from 1st September, 1944 to 30th April, 1946 but had not been paid the charge allowance of Rs. 25/- per month for that period as Assistant Head Clerk; that he was in charge of more then 12 clerks from 1st May, 1946 to 30th June, 1947 but was not paid the charge allowance of Rs. 50/- per month as Head Clerk; and that even for the period subsequent to the 1st of July, 1947 right upto the 12th of August, 1956, he had been paid a charge allowance of only Rs. 20 per month, instead of Rs. 50/- per month to which he was entitled as Head Clerk. It is in respect of the aggregate of these, payments by way of charge allowance, which according of the plaintiff are due to him, that the plaintiff has made the second head of his claim, aggregating to Rs. 3,972,44. What may be called the third head of the plaintiff's claim is in the nature of declarations ancillary to the above two money claims of the plaintiff, the declarations claimed being to the effect that the plaintiff would be entitled to benefits by way of security, confirmation, promotion and pay on the basis of the two claims.

(3.) Seven issues were framed by the learned trial Judge which are to be found in paragraph No. 12 of his judgment, but I am concerned in this appeal only with issues Nos. 2 and 4, which have been decided against the plaintiff by the learned trial Judge. As far as the remaining issues are concerned, the same have been decided in favour of the plaintiff except issues Nos. 6 and 7 which relate to the relief claimed by the plaintiff. I am, therefore not called upon to deal with the same in this appeal filed by the plaintiff.