UNION OF INDIA Vs. RAM NATH CHITORY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment will dispose of Regular First Appeal No. 81-D of 1960 and regular First Appeal No. 23-D of 1961, which are in the nature of cross-appeals against the judgment and decree of Shri O. P. Aggarwala, Subordinate Judge Ist class, Delhi, dated the 18th April, 1960.

(2.) SHRI Ram Nath Chitory Knowal, plaintiff, was employed as a clerk in the Posts and Telegraph Department and after a departmental enquiry was dismissed on 19th January, 1952. From 9th April, 1946, to 18th January 1952, he remained under suspension. He filed the suit on 5th March 1957, challenging the order of his dismissal and claiming Rs. 32,737. 70 P. as arrears of his pay till 28th February, 1957, and also future pay and allowances at Rs. 275 per month till the decision of the suit. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following five issues :

(3.) BOTH the parties, namely, the plaintiff and the Union of India, were aggrieved by this judgment and filed appeals, the appeal of the Union of India being confined to the plea that the suit for salary could be decreed only for a period of three years and two months and the claim for the balance was barred by time under Article 102 of the Limitation Act. Mr. S. N. Shankar, learned counsel for the Union of india, has relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in Madhav Laxman Vaikunthe v. State of Mysore, AIR 1962 SC 8. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court approved the decision of the Federal Court in Punjab Province v. Tarachand, 1947 f. C. R. 89: (AIR 1947 FC 23) and held that a suit for arrears of salary was governed by Article 102 of the Limitation Act. The real controversy at the bar has been about the starting point of the limitation. According to the plaintiff, the starting point is the date when a Court declares the order of removal illegal, while the defendant maintains that the salary becomes due on the last day of each month and the period of limitation for each month's salary begins to run from that day. In view of this controversy and in view of certain decisions subsequent to the supreme Court Judgment, it is necessary to examine Madhav Laxman Vaikunlhe's case AIR 1962 SC 8 very carefully. Before doing so, it is desirable to go to the language of Article 102 for a moment. According to the said provision, the starting point of limitation is : "when the wages accrue due. " In view of the above mentioned judgment of the Supreme Court, it is not urged that the expression "wages" does not include salary. Having said, that, I would proceed to examine the decision of the Supreme Court. The claim in that case was for salary with respect to the period, August, 1946, to November, 1953, the date of retirement of the employee, whose reversion to the substantive rank had been held to be violative of Section 240 (3) of the Government of India Act. The amount represented the difference between the pay actually drawn and that to which he would have been entitled but for the wrongful orders. The suit was filed on August 2, 1954. The Supreme Court held that adding a period of two months of the statutory period under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the suit was within time only from June 2, 1951. There have been some decisions in which the judgment of their Lordships of the Supreme Court has been distinguished. In those cases the point of view suggested on behalf of the plaintiff has been accepted. It is therefore, necessary to deal with the said decision.