NAURATA Vs. RAUNQI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent Pardip Kumar was employed by Northern Railway Authorities at Kalka as Box Porter substitute Khalasi on 23-4-1973. On 22-1-1975 the respondent was involved in a criminal case of theft of Railway property. On the following day viz. 23-1-1975 when he reported for duty, the Railway Authorities told him that his services had been terminated because of involvement in criminal case aforesaid. The complaint instituted against him in the Court of Special Railway Magistrate, Ambala was dismissed in default on 5-5-1976. The employee filed a civil suit challenging termination of his services, which was dismissed as barred by limitation. In appeal, on being told that there was no order dated 22-1-1975 terminating his services, the employee withdrew the suit and the appeal both. Inspite of it the Railway Authorities would not accept him back in service not pay him his salary after 22-1-1975. Faced against the wall, the employee filed Civil Suit No. 552 on 31-5-1979 for recovery of three years' arrears of salary from 1-4-1976 to 28-2-1979 at the rate of Rs. 300/- (Rupees three hundred only) per month. Learned trial Court decreed the suit on 22-3-1983. Appeal filed against it by the Union of India in the District Court also failed on 16-5-1984. Hence R.S.A. No. 2226 of 1984 in this Court.

(2.) It has been urged by the learned counsel for the Northern Railway-appellant that the provisions of Order 2, Rule 2; Order 23, rule 1 and Section 11, Code of Civil Procedure, barred the institution of Civil Suit No. 552 on 31-5-1979 because

(3.) None of the three arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant-Union of India has any merit therein. The previous suit was for a mere declaration that the order dated 22-1-1975 terminating the services of the respondent was illegal and the consequential benefits resulting from the declaration aforesaid. Once the mighty Railway Administration informed the plaintiff-respondent that there was no order dated 22-1-1975, as alleged by him in the plaint of the previous suit, plaintiff-respondent had no other alternative except to withdraw the suit and the appeal both. Finding on point of limitation expressed therein by the learned trial Court, as held in Tribeni Missir v. Gopal Misra, 1963 AIR(Pat) 60does not bar the present suit.