SMT. SAJMO DEVI AND OTHERS Vs. HARYANA STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned counsel for the appellants has argued that once the order of dismissal dated 28th March, 1965, is declared to be illegal and void and not binding on the employee, the heirs would's entitled to salary for the entire period during which dismissal order remained operative and not only for three years as found by the court below. In this regard, reliance is placed on my judgment in State of Punjab v. K.M. Sarvia, 1980 Current Law Journal 9-, wherein I had held following a Supreme Court judgment that in a decree, for declaration the employee would be entitled to claim all salary to which he would have been entitled but for the erroneous order of dismissal. This clearly goes to show that it would be irrespective of the period of three years as the trial of the suit for declaration may take more than that period and it will not be just and proper to deprive the employee of all the arrears to which he would have been entitled but for the wrongful order of dismissal.

(2.) Mr. Gulati appearing for the State has placed reliance on Madhav Laxman Vaikunthe v. State of Mysore, A.I.R. 1962 Supreme Court 8-, and a Division Bench judgment of this Court based thereon in Union of India through the Secy. Ministry of Communication, Govt. of India, New Delhi v. Ram Nath Chitory, A.I.R. 1966 Punjab 500-. In both these cases, a suit for recovery of arrears of pay was filed. There it was held that in a suit for recovery of arrears of pay etc. period of three years limitation will apply. The aforesaid decisions are clearly distinguishable from the facts of the present case as also the Supreme Court decision which I had followed. A suit for declaration was filed by the employee to have the order of dismissal set aside and to obtain a declaration that he continued to be in service. The Supreme Court declared the dismissal of the employee to be illegal and granted a decree that he continues to be in service. Thereafter, he claimed all the arrears of salary right from 1st June, 1962 till 9th February, 1974. On those facts the Supreme Court was of the view that the only way in which the judgment of the Court could be implemented was by payment of the aforesaid amount of salary to the employee and a direction was issued for payment of the dues with in two months. Following the aforesaid view in a case of declaratory decree, I ordered that execution application is maintainable and the executing court would be entitled to execute the decree against State of Punjab, directing it to pay all arrears of salary etc. to the decree holder from the date of submission of resignation by the decree holder till he as allowed to resume his duties. The present case is also a case of declaratory decree and, therefore, two decisions relied upon by the counsel for the State are not applicable to this case.

(3.) For the reasons recorded above, I allow this appeal, modify the judgments and decrees of the courts below and besides the decree fell declaration granted by the courts below, grant a further decree in favour of the appellants, who are the legal heirs of the employee, that they will be entitled to recovery all arrears of pay, allowances, gratuity, pension etc., from the date of dismissal of the employee in accordance with the rules admissible to him. There will be no order as to costs.