BALMOKAND LAL HIRA NAND Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment will dispose of C. R. No. 425-D of 1958 and C. R. No. 426-D of 1958, which arise out of the same dispute.

(2.) SHRI Balmokand Lal Malik, the present petitioner before me, joined as an apprentice overseer in the North Western Railway on 26-7-1922, and was confirmed as an overseer about a year later. He retired on 30-11-1952, and was allowed a pension of Rs. 256. 12 np. p. m. 2a. The suit out of which these revisions have arisen was instituted by him for a declaration that he was entitled to pension at Rs. 274. 44 np p. m. instead of the amount of pension allowed and also prayed for a decree for Rs. 1,682. 56 up. His case was that for the purpose of evaluating the pension one year's period of apprenticeship under training should also have been counted and that on this basis the plaintiff was entitled to the higher pension claimed. It was, in addition, averred that the plaintiff suffered a loss of Rs. 970. 56 np on account of pension upto 31st March 1957, as a result of the difference in the amount claimed and the amount allowed. The plaintiff also pleaded that as a result of exclusion of one year's period of apprenticeship, the gratuity allowed to him also resulted in a loss of about Rs. 712/- which he was entitled to claim.

(3.) THE defendant, Union of India, resisted the suit on various grounds, one of the grounds being that the General Manager, Northern Railway, could not be made liable for this claim, the second ground being that the suit for recovery of gratuity was incompetent and the third one being that the suit was time-barred. The pleas with respect to the maintainability of the suit against the General Manager and the one relating to limitation do not concern us in the present proceedings because on a statement having been made by the counsel for the plaintiff the suit against defendant No. 2 was actually dismissed and the issue arising out of the plea with respect to limitation, as agreed by the counsel for both the parties, was left over to be decided along with the issues on the merits. The Court below upheld the plea with respect to the incompetency of the suit for recovery of gratuity holding that gratuity is a matter in the discretion of the Government and cannot be claimed as of right. As a result of this finding, the learned Subordinate Judge on 12th May, 1958, adjourned the case, for framing issues on the merits of the remaining claim, to 19th May, 1958. It is this order of 12th May, 1958, which is the subject-matter of C. R. No. 425-D of 1958.