JAGAT RAM ARYAN Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application by Jagat Ram Aryan, a member of Legislative Assembly of the State, for permission to sue in forma pauperis for recovery of Rs. 1,00,00,000 (Rupees one crore). The amount is claimed as special damages from the respondents jointly or severally for the wrongs alleged to have been done by them as joint tort feasors to the petitioner and the members of his family. In the application which has been filed by him on 12 -2 -1969, it has been alleged by the petitioner that he was appointed as Hari -jan Special Officer in the permanent cadre and grade of 200 -20 -300 vide Cabinet Order No. 35 -C/48 dated 15 -4 -1948, that respondents 2, 3 and 4 conspired to establish an independent State at the head of the Sub continent of India, and used the whole Government machinery in furtherance of that aim, that they designed various tactics and stratagems to achieve that end, that they also tried to induce him to support their machinations against India, that on his failure to fall in line with their machinations to betray the country by straying from the right course they conspired against him in 1950 and suspended him without any written order or charge, that after his suspension a series of cases were trumped up against him by the respondents with the ulterior motive of annihilating him and his family members thus subjecting them to nervous, mental and physical torture and economic distress, that he was hurled from one jail to another and from one Court to another, that his property was confiscated under verbal orders of respondents 2, 3 and 4, that this process of prosecution and persecution continued from 1950 to September, 1963, that on his acquittal in the last case he applied to the Chief Minister for his reinstatement with all the increments etc. that had fallen due to him, that on 3 -7 -1967 he was informed by the Deputy Secretary to Government, General Department, that the Government had not been able to find sufficient reasons to open his case, that thereafter he approached the Chief Minister in appeal against the decision of the Government, that on 27 -2 -1968 the Chief Minister informed him vide his Note 1692 -CS/68 that he could not but uphold the decision taken in the case on 3 -7 -1967, and that in June, 1968 he served the respondents with notice under Section 80, Civil P. C. claiming one crore of rupees as special damages. In Paragraph 8 of the application the petitioner has laid a claim for rupees one crore as special damages from the respondents as joint tort feasers for the pecuniary loss of his salary and mental, nervous and physical torture to which he and his family members have been subjected by them. In paragraph 9 of his application the petitioner has stated that he has not got the means to pay the court -fee of Rupees 61462 required to be paid on his plaint

(2.) A notice with regard to this application was issued to the respondents, first three of whom have contested the application. Respondent No. 1 i.e. the State of Jammu and Kashmir, has averred that the petitioner has deliberately omitted to give details of the order of his appointment and the terms and conditions of his service, that the Government created two temporary posts of Special Officers, for Harijans, that the petitioner was appointed against one of the said posts, that on the petitioners own showing he ceased to function under orders of the Revenue Minister from 1950, that in view of these facts the petitioner has no cause of action for the present suit, that the petitioner being a temporary employee on a temporary post and having ceased to function from 1950 is not entitled to claim the arrears of pay or any declaration, that the temporary employee in 1950 could be disbanded and his discharge could not be held illegal nor could it create any right in him for declaration to the effect that he be deemed to be a permanent employee and entitled to pay thereof after the date of his discharge, that the suit for arrears of salary and declaration is clearly time barred and the petition does not disclose any cause of action. It has been averred by respondent No. 1 in para No. 6 of its objections that the petitioner has not disclosed as to how he had a right to claim rupees one crore as damages.

(3.) RESPONDENTS Nos. 2 and 3 have inter alia averred that the petitioner is possessed of sufficient means and property to pay the court -fee and cannot as such be treated as pauper in the eye of law, that the petitioners claim for damages is prima facie time barred and cannot be allowed after the expiry of one year.