SAMARDAS Vs. GOVERNMENT OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff-appellant against rejection of his plaint under Order 7, Rule 11(A) and (B) of the Code of Civil Procedure, after holding that it discloses no cause of action and the relief claimed is under-valued. The plaintiff sought a declaration that his order of removal dated 2-11-1986 is invalid and inoperative and claimed damages amounting to Rs. 1,02,840.00 by way of Joss of his salary due to illegal removal from service.

(2.) The plaintiff was appointed as a Forest Guard on 23-9-1958 in North Bilaspur Forest Division by the Divisional Forest Officer, Bilaspur. He was removed from service by order dated 2-11-1966. This was challenged by the plaintiff in Civil Suit No. 99-A of 1969 on the ground that since the plaintiff became a quasi-permanent servant, he could not be removed without being charge-sheeted and after holding an enquiry. The suit was dismissed on 13-7-1970 and the dismissal was maintained in first appeal on 13-10-1971 and in Second Appeal No. 77 of 1972, by this Court., on 13-3-1973. The suit was dismissed for non-joinder of necessary party, i.e., State of M.P. Nothing prevented the plaintiff from filing a fresh suit after withdrawing the earlier suit, which was found to be defective for non-joinder of necessary party, with permission to file a fresh suit. This was not done. Instead, the plaintiff filed a second suit on 7-8-1980 for declaration and for damages from the date of removal from service, i.e., 2-11-1966. According to the learned Counsel, the plaintiff could claim damages from the period within three years from the date of filing of the suit, i.e., from 8-8-1977, and his future claim for damages could not also have been dismissed, as being barred by time. There is no merit in this contention. The plaintiff will be entitled to damages towards loss of his salary, provided it is held that his removal was invalid and inoperative. Learned Counsel, however, contended that in the earlier suit, the Trial Court has held that the removal was not illegal, but in appeal the finding was set aside. The judgment of the appellate Court has not been produced. In any case, the suit having been dismissed right upto second appeal and if any such finding was given, it has no validity and is also not binding on the State of M.P., which was not a party to that suit. Unless the order of removal from service dated 2-11-1966 is set aside, the plaintiff will not be entitled to claim any arrears of salary of damages. The first suit having been dismissed, the second suit on the same cause of action will not lie. Besides, a suit for declaration is barred by time, as limitation for declaration under Art. 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963, is three years. The suit has been filed on 7-8-1980, while removal from service was on 2-11-1966. Hence, the plaintiff is not entitled to claim any declaration and consequently his claim for damages does not survive. There being no merit, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.