STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. SUNDER DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a second appeal by the defendant State against whom the respondent's suit No. 37/61 for the recovery of Rs. 2016. 94 as arrears of salary for the period from 1-5-52 to 18-5-54 was decreed by the Civil Judge, Ajmer and the same was maintained in appeal by the District Judge, Ajmer on 31-3-1965.

(2.) RESPONDENT Sunderdas joined service in the Agriculture Department of the erstwhile State of Ajmer on 10-5-1949. His appointment was temporary. His services were terminated after one month's notice to him with effect from the afternoon of 30-4-1952. The order terminating his service is Ex. A. 3 on record. Sunderdas appeared to have represented the matter and he was re-employed on the same post with effect from 19-5-1954. This order has not been placed on record by either party. In the meanwhile, State of Ajmer merged into Rajasthan. By the order dated 24th February, 1960 the Government of Rajasthan in the Agriculture Department passed an order condoning the break of service of the respondent Sundardas from 1st May, 1952 to 18th May, 1954 for the purpose of quasi permanency, seniority and fixation of pay. According to this order, be was declared quasi permanent with effect from 1st July, 1954. He was also permitted to count the period of break for the purpose of increment. A copy of this order is on record and marked Ex. A. 4. It was delivered to Shri Sunderdas on 10-4-1960. On the basis of this order, the respondent instituted the suit in the court of Civil Judge, Ajmer, that he was entitled to all the natural and consequential relief flowing from the Government order Ex. A. 4 and claimed a money decree of Rs. 2016. 94 with interest at the rate of 6% per annum for the period during which, according to him, he was prevented from attending his duties. In short, his claim was for the arrears of pay from 1-5-52 to 18-5-54. This suit was filed by him on 3rd July, 1961.

(3.) THE plaintiff in the present case sued the State Government clearly on the basis of the order dated 24-2-60 (Ex. A-4) for the arrears of salary. According to him, that gave rise to a cause of action to him, for his claim. THEre is no controversy between the parties that Art, 102 applies to a case where arrears of salary are claimed. THE courts below as well held that this article governed the present case. THE controversy, however, is as to when the cause of action arises and the period of limitation commences in a suit of this nature. According to the third column of Art. 102 the period of limitation commences when the "wages accrued due" and the period of limitation is prescribed as three years. THEir Lordships of the Supreme Court in Madhav vs. State of Mysore (5) quoted with approval a decision of the Federal Court in Punjab Province vs. Tarachand (6) in which it was held that the term "wages" included the word "salary" and a suit for arrears of salary of a Government servant is governed by Art. 102 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908.