STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. KASHINATH DAGADU SANAP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff (respondent herein) was employed as a junior accountant in the office of the Divisional Forest Officer at Vyara in Dhulia district. In 1951, he was drawing in all Rs. 200 per month in the scale of Rs. 100-8-140, inclusive of allowances etc. A charge-sheet came to be framed against him on September 12, 1951 and after inquiry, he was dismissed from, service by an order dated July 15, 1954. The plaintiff then initiated Suit No. 316 of 1956 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Dhulia, (1) for declaration that the order of dismissal was void being in violation of Article 311 of the Constitution, as also (2) for the arrears of salary up to the date of the suit. This suit was decreed on December 30, 1957 and the decree was confirmed in appeal on August 31, 1959 and also in Second Appeal on September 26, 1965 by this Court. It is common ground that he was thereafter reinstated on January 10, 1966. The plaintiff then filed the present suit on December 24, 1966 in forma pauperis claiming arrears of salary from February 25, 1956 till the date of the suit. He claimed in all Rs. 41,488 calculating the same on the footing of what he would have received at enhanced rates, in the ordinary course, but for such wrongful dismissal, by way of increments, and also on promotion, from the date from which his immediate junior was promoted.

(2.) The defendant denied the liability, on several grounds, including the one of limitation as to the arrears for more than three years before the date of the suit, and another that increments on promotion and enhanced salaries on account thereof, cannot be claimed as a matter of course. Reference to other points is irrelevant as none were argued before us.

(3.) The learned trial Judge decreed the claim of the plaintiff to the extent of Rs. 24,890 with interest on Rs. 24,885 and also costs on the sum of Rs. 27,421. The State's plea as to the bar of limitation was overruled, but its objection to the claim at the enhanced rates was upheld. The State has preferred the appeal, and the plaintiff cross-objections, against this judgement and decree dated March 25, 1968.