COLLECTOR, GANJAM AND ORS. Vs. NARAYAN BESOYI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Plaintiff was an employee under the State Government in the Agriculture Department and retired as such on 31 -3 -1987. He filed the suit seeking for a direction "to render accounts of his arrear salary from 1 -3 -1970 to 31 -3 -1987 and...to pay the same with interest from 7 -1 -1987 till the date of payment".

(2.) THE trial court passed a preliminary decree by judgment dated 29 -2 -1988 directing Defendants 2 to 3 to render accounts of the arrears of the salary of the Plaintiff from 1 -3 -1970 to 31 -3 -1987 and further directed the District Agriculture Officer, Aska, to pay the same with interest at the rate of six percent per annum from 1.4 -1987 till the final date of payment. It was also directed that the cost of the suit was to be paid by Defendant No. 3, the District Agriculture Officer, Aska. Thereafter, the Defendants had filed Money Appeal No. 12 of 1988 which was dismissed by the 2nd. Addl. District Judge, Ganjam at Berhambur by judgment dated 1 -2 -1989. In the meantime, the Plaintiff had initiated final decree proceeding numbered as F.D.M.S. No. 23/87. The final decree has been passed by the trial court directing Defendant No. 3. the, District Agriculture Officer, Aska, to pay the dues of the Plaintiff from 1.3 -1970 to 31 -3 -1987 which has been quantified at Rs. 99,157.80 paisa. The trial court also directed that the gratuity for 161/2 months at the rate of Rs. 2,450/amounting to Rs. 40,425/ - shall also be paid. The aforesaid amount was directed to be paid with interest at the rate of six percent per annum. The trial court further directed that the Plaintiff was entitled to the pension at the rate of Rs. 1,225/ - and D.A. thereon as permissible under law. It was further directed that Defendant No. 3, the District Agriculture Officer. Aska, was to pay a sum of Rs. 3.681.80 paisa towards the cast of the final decree. The aforesaid final decree has been challenged by the three Defendants.

(3.) ON going through the decision of the Addl. District Judge in Money Appeal No. 12 of 1988, it appears that such a contention had been raised against the preliminary decree and the said contention had been negative. Since the said decision had not been challenged any further it would not be appropriate for the Appellant to raise the question again at the stage of appeal against the final decree.