LAWS(P&H)-1989-11-46

KISHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

Decided On November 28, 1989
KISHAN SINGH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since the order of termination of services of the plaintiff appellant has been set aside and a decree to this effect has been granted, the facts of this case can be noticed in a very narrow compass for appreciating the legal question involved

(2.) The Plaintiff appellant, Kishan Singh instituted a suit on the averments that in the month of November/December, 1974 he had applied for leave which was granted for 75 days. In the month of February 1975 he applied for extension of his leave for one year more as his leg was fractured. When he wanted to resume his duty in the year 1976 he was not permitted to join on the ground that his services had been terminated against which he filed an appeal to the Director, State Transport Department, Punjab, Chandigarh but the same was not heard till the date of the filing of the suit. The order of termination of services was challenged by him on the ground that no show cause notice was issued to him before the final order of termination of services was passed. The suit was instituted on 8-1-1986 for a declaration that the order dated 26 8 1975 passed by the General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Hoshiarpur, was illegal, invalid, without jurisdiction and against the provisions of service rules and the principles of natural justice. The trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff appellant by holding that the order of dismissal was null and void. However, the plaintiff appellant was held entitled to get his pay, emoluments etc from the date of the institution of the suit. Two appeals were filed before the first Appellate Court The Punjab State in its appeal urged that the order of termination of services was legal, whereas, the case of the appellant was that he was entitled to all the remunerations etc not only after the institution of the suit but right from 1975 when his services were terminated. The appellate court dismissed both the appeals. The State of Punjab did not appeal against the decree passed by the appellate court The plaintiff-appellant has, however, come up in appeal against the judgments and decrees of the courts below claiming all the arrears of pay, allowances etc. ft is undisputed that the plaintiff appellant has retired.

(3.) It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the order of termination having been declared to be null and void by the courts below and the State having not filed any appeal against the Judgments and decrees of the courts below, be is also entitled to all the back wages right from the very beginning till the institution of the suit. In support of his argument, the learned counsel has cited Radha Ram v. Municipal Committee, Barnala and Anr., 1983 (1) S. L. R 151. On the other hand, the counsel for the State has argued that the decree of the appellate court granting salary etc from the date of the institution of the suit onwards was correct and that there is nothing wrong in the view of the appellate court that the appellant was not entitled to the back wages as the period of absence from duty could be treated as leave of the kind due. In support of his argument, the learned counsel has placed reliance upon Paluru Ram Krishnantah and Ors. v. Union of India and Anr., (1989)2 S.C.C. 541.