JAGDISH MITTER Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question which has been referred to this Full Bench by the order of P. D. Sharma J. of 15th of February, 1967 arises from two sets of Bench decisions of this court in K. K. Jaggia v. State of Punjab ILR (1966) 1 Punj 302: Regular First appeal No. 8-D of 1964 (Punj) Union of India v. Maharaj decided by D. B. Capoor and H. R. Khanna JJ. on 6th of September 1966 and the State of Punjab v. Ram singh Brar. (1967) 1 Ser LR 594 (Punj) decided by Mahajan and Narula JJ. on the one hand and Union of India v. Ram Nath, ILR (1966) 2 Punj 907 = (AIR 1966 punj 500) (Dular and S. K. Kapur Jj) on the other which though in conflict with each other purport to follow the same authority of the Supreme Court in Madhav laxman Vaikunte v. State of Mysore (1962)1 SCR 886 = (AIR 1962 SC) the impasse which is sought to be void and unlawful can recover by a suit or proceedings filed in time his claim for arrears of salary in respect of the entire period when the he remained out of employment or is limited only to a period of three years before the institution of the suit or proceeding?. . . .

(2.) THE facts with regard to the case in point may now be briefly narrated. The petitioner Jagdish Mitter a temporary clerk in the office of the Post-Master General, lahore since 9th of October, 1946 was discharged from service on 1st of december 1949. In a suit brought against the Union of India on 11th November, 1952. And dismissed by the trial Court on 22nd March, 1954 to the effect that the terminations of his service was illegal being in contravention of the relevant Rules and Regulations. In a further appeal of the Union of India the suit was again dismissed by a Single Judge of the Punjab High Court (S. B. Capoor J.) on 10th august 1959 and the petitioner though unsuccessful in his appeal before the letters Patent Bench which dismissed it in limine on 19th August, 1960 eventually gained his point on 20th of September 1963, before the Supreme Court in a judgment which is often cited as an authority on the question of wrongful dismissal this being Jagdish Mitter v. Union of India AIR 1964 SC 449 According to the judgment of the Supreme court the decree passed in favour of Jagdish Mitter by the lower appellate Court was restored.

(3.) IN consequence of the decision of the Supreme Court which declared that the petitioner was illegally dismissed from service "and that therefore he continues in service. " The Director Postal Services on 2nd July 1964 passed an order for reinstating him as a lower division clerk with effect from 1st December 1949. It was further directed that the petitioner would be entitled to such of his pay and allowances for the period between 1st of December 1949 when his services were terminated and 4th of October 1963 when he was reinstated by virtue of the supreme Court decision as would be permissible under the law of limitation. The petitioner kept on agitating departmentally for the full benefits which he claimed should have accrued to him as a result of his ultimate success in the litigation but his request was turned down on 6th of November 1964 and was offered only three years pay preceding the date of his reinstatement from which the sum which he had already drawn while temporarily employed was to be deducted. A notice under section 80 of the code of Civil Procedure was then sent by the petitioner to the government of India on 3rd of April 1965 and the present writ petition under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India was filed on 21st of August 1965 praying that he should be deemed to be in service right from the date of termination of his service i. e. , 1st December 1949 and that the should be paid arrears of salary for the entire period without deduction of the amounts which he may have received while in service during that period Mr. Abnasha Singh counsel for the petitioner further submits that some ancillary relief for proper adjustment of seniority has also to be spelled out from the relief claimed in the petition.