STATE OF BIHAR Vs. KAMLA PRASAD SINHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by defendant no. 1. The plaintiff respondent instituted a suit for declaration that the order of his discharge from service passed by the Collector of Gaya on 28-4-1967 was illegal and without jurisdiction. He also claimed a decree of Rs. 13,873:70 on account of the arrears of salary and other allowances payable to him according to his service conditions from the month of July, 1962, to February, 1966, i, e. for the period just before the institution of the suit. The suit was filed on the 12th of March, 1966. As we are concerned with a very short question of limitation involved in tnis appeal, we are deliberately omitting all the bundles of facts, which have been stated in the judgment of the court below. The trial court decreed the suit of the plaintiff. It held that the order of di charge of the plaiatiffas illegal and void for failure of holding a proper enquiry and non" compliance of other provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. The trial Court allowed a sum of Rs. 12,19136 also on account of the arrears of salary and other allowances to the plaintiff. The State of Bihar accordingly appealed to this Court.

(2.) Mr. Angad Ojha, learned Government pleader no. 1, has raised only one question for consideration of this Court and the question is as to whether the court below was right in decreeing the plaintiff's claim for arrears of salary etc. for a period beyond three years.

(3.) Although no specific issue on the question of limitation was framed by the trial court, the question of limitation was pleaded in the written statement and it was contended in the Court below on behalf of the appellant that the suit of the plaintiff was governed by Article 102 of the old Limitation Act, which corresponds to Article 7 of the new Limitation Act and, tnerefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to get arrears of salary for the period beyond three years prior to the date of the institution of the suit. The Court below overruled this plea of limitation relying upon a Bench decision of the Madras High Court in the case of State of mad v. A. V. Anan tharaman, (AIR 1963 Madras 425), wherein it was held that the right of the dismissed Government servant for recovery of arrears of pay accrues after his reinstatemant and, therefore, he could institute a suit within three years from that date. The learned Government pleader disputed the correctnes of this decision of the Madras High Court on the basis of the authorities of Madaya Pradesh and Punjab High Courts. We shall come to these authorities herein after Article 7 of the new Limitation Act prescribed a period of three years' limitation for institution of suit from the date when the wages accrue due. The trial Court on the basis of the aforesaid decision of the Madras High Court took, the view, as already seen above, that a person who is confronted with an order of discharge or dismissal cannot institute a suit unless the said order is set aside and, therefore, the right to claim the arrears of salary arises only after the order of discharge or dismissal is set aside.