STATE OF BIHAR Vs. CHARANJITLAL CHADHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals arise out of the same judgment. F. A. 126 of 1953 is by defendant No. 2, Raja Bahadur Kamakshya Narain Singh of Ramgarh, and F. A. 92 of 1953 is by defendant No. 1, the State of Bihar. The short facts leading to the institution of the suit out of which these appeals arise are these :

(2.) By an agreement dated 18-9-1941, made between defendant No. 2 and defendant No. 1, the administration of the forests of the Ramgarh Raj remained in the hands of the Raj subject to the control of the Government as set forth in the working plan sanctioned by Government, the Provincial Government having the right to selection and appointment of the Forest Officer whose services, however, after the appointment, were placed under the proprietor of the Raj, defendant No. 2. The above agreement was entered into under the provisions of the Indian Forest Act (XVI of 1927). On 25-5-1952, the plaintiff Charanjit Lal Chadha was appointed Forest Officer by defendant No. 1 In respect of the forests of the Ramgarh Raj on a monthly salary of Rs. 400 in addition to travelling allowance and his services were terminable on three months' previous notice. At the time he entered into the service, he had, under the orders of the Government, to make a deposit of Rs. 800 with defendant No. 2 by way of security. On 19-12-1947, the taking over of the forest was denotified under the notification promulgated by the Government, being notification No. 12221- VIF-293/47-R dated 19-12-1947, and there was a further notification in that regard being notification No. 12222-VIF-273-R dated 30-12-1947. On 28-5-1948, according to the plaintiff, his services were terminated by a letter written by the Conservator of Forests on that date offering Rs. 1200 as compensation in lieu of three months' salary. It appears that the plaintiff accepted the said amount but, according to him, that represented the salary for January to March, 1948, only. The salary of the plaintiff from 1-11-1947, to 31-12-1947, and from the 1-4-1948, to 29-5-1948, was not paid. He also made a claim for his travelling allowance and for the refund of the security money deposited with defendant No, 2. Nothing having been paid to him towards the above items, the plaintiff instituted a suit for recovery of Rs. 2700 being the amount of his salary for the above period Rs. 1042/14/- as travelling allowance, Rs. 800, the security money and Rs. 575 by way of interest, the total being a sum of Rs. 5117/14/-. The plaintiff wanted a decree for the above amount to be passed either against defendant No. 1 or defendant No. 2 whoever may be found to be liable.

(3.) The suit was contested by both the defendants, each throwing the, burden over the other. The sum and substance of their defence, however, was that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover any amount from either of them.