MUNICIPAL BOARD Vs. GANPAT LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Municipal Board, Nawa defendant -appellant has preferred this second appeal against the judgment and decree, dated September 5, 1969 of learned Munsif, Nawa in favour of the plaintiff respondent was affirmed.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts are these. Respondent Ganpatlal was an employee of the appellant and on 1 -7 -58 he was holding a post of a clerk. On 30 -12 -60, he was made a permanent employee of the appellant. Vide order, dated February 1, 1966, he was compulsorily retired with effect from the afternoon of February 18, 1966 (Ex. 7). The order is alleged to be Illegal and void because the respondent could only be removed or compulsorily mired from the service by the appointing authority i.e. the Municipal Board, Nawa and also because he was not compulsorily retired in accordance with the rules. The suit was resisted interalia on the ground that the respondent was a temporary employee. He submitted resignation vide letter dated June 3, 1965, which was accepted by the appellant. Another objection taken was that the unit was not within Imitation Both the courts below held that the suit was with limitation and the order of compulsory retirement dated February 1, 1966 (Ex. 7) was illegal and void. Learned appellate court held that the procedure for compulsory retirement of the Municipal employees was not followed.

(3.) IT is argued in the apt instance that the appellate court was in error in coming to a conclusion that the suit was within limitation as two months period of notice could not be added to the limitation of 6 months prescribed under Section 271 of the Act. Under Section 271(1) of the Act, two months prior notice, is a condition precedent for filing a suit. Exclusion of this two months time is provided under Section 15(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963, which reads as under: