STATE OF ORISSA Vs. SURYANARAYAN PANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants in Money Suit No. 4 of 1984 of the Court of Addl. Subordinate Judge, Berhampur (Money Suit No. 79 of 1980 of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Berhampur) have preferred this appeal challenging the decree for payment of money as claimed by the plaintiff -respondent.

(2.) AS it reveals from the pleadings plaintiff's case is that while working as Sectional Officer in R.E. Section, Koraput under Defendant No. 4, i.e. the Assistant Engineer, R.E. Sub -Division, Koraput he was transferred and posted in Ganjam District. Accordingly, by order No. 306 (2) dated 22.5.1967 afternoon he was relieved by Defendant No. 4 and after availing the transit he joined in R.E.Division of Berhampur. Defendant No. 4 forwarded his L.R.C. showing his date of relief as 20.5.1967 as a result of which his salary was not drawn from 21.5.1967 to 2.6.1967 and thereafter his annual increments were not given in spite of repeated approach and request, When failed to draw attention and sympathy of the superior authorities like Superintending Engineer, R.E.O. (Southern Circle), Berhampur (Defendant No. 2) and Executive Engineer. R.E. Division, Koraput (Defendant No. 3) and also Defendant No. 4 he was compelled to approach this Court for the payment of the arrear salary and grant of annual increments after serving notice Under Section 80, C.P.C. His total claims were valued at Rs. 21,949,15 which was calculated upto end of August, 1980. In the joint written statement Defendants 1 to 4 denied the plaint allegations. It was stated in that written statement that he was relieved on 20.5.1967 though the date of relief might have been shown as 22.5.1967. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff did not apply for sanction of leave or extension of joining time to regularise the excess period consumed in transit and that since the aforesaid matter was not regularised annual increments to cross E.B. with effect from 1.1.1 970 and onwards the further annual increment and other monetary claim could not be granted. It was thus prayed to dismiss the suit. Notwithstanding the aforesaid written statement, as it reveals.from the impugned judgment and the evidence in record that the period of joining time was regularised by the authorities and annual increments as claimed by the plaintiff was granted in his favour at a subsequent stage after filing of the written statement yet the Defendants contested the suit on the ground plaintiff's claim is not maintainable and it is barred,by time.

(3.) WHETHER the plaintiff is entitled to the suit claim ? - - - -