- (1.) The plaintiff-appellant's allegations, in the suit which comes up by special leave before us, may be stated as follows. The appellant was appointed a Clerk on 29-7-1925 at Gorakhpur in the Accounts' Department of what was then the Bengal North Eastern Railway. In January, 1930, he was appointed an Assistant Office Superintendent. The Railway was taken over by the State and renamed as Oudh Tirhut Railway (O.T.R.) and, subsequently, it became the North Eastern Railway. In January, 1949, the appellant was appointed officiating Assistant Secretary to the General Manager as a Class II Officer. On 11-5-1949, he was prompted to the post of Office Superintendent . But, on that very date, he was served with a charge-sheet by the Deputy General Manager and called upon to explain, within 3 days, the use of certain first class passes issued to him. On 14-5-1949, he submitted his explanation and justified the use of these passes by quoting specific rules and similar instances. On 29-6-1949 the General Manager reverted the appellant from the post of Office Superintendent to that of the Assistant Office Superintendent with effect from 1-7-1949 without holding any enquiry at all as required by the Disciplinary and Appeal Rules of the Railway. The appellant's case is that, despite his demotion, he continued to perform the duties of the Office Superintendent presumably because he was efficient. On 27-7-1949, the appellant filed on appeal to the General Manager with the result that, on 29-11-1950, the Deputy General Manager had to withdraw the charges with the remarks: "since the appellant had used the passes under a genuine and reasonable belief, no stigma was attached'. Thereupon, the appellant applied to the General Manager for formal reinstatement in the post of Office Superintendent and payment of arrears of his salary. Curiously, the General Manager, while awarding an honorarium of Rs. 40/- per month for the additional work of Office Superintendent done by the appellant, practically upheld the reversion order with the remark that the appellant's guilt was established. Against this order the appellant filed an appeal on 30-7-1952 to the Railway Board through the General Manager which was duly forwarded to the Railway Board on 19-5-1952. On 30th October, 1954, the Railway Board sent a letter to the General Manager stating that the question raised by the appellant was not a "live issue" and, therefore, there was no reason to interfere with the General Manager's action. On 30-9-1959, the appellant retired at the age of 57 despite his claim that he was entitled to continue up to the age of 60 years. The appellant alleged that he received no intimation about the disposal of his appeal by the Railway Board despite the fact that he went on sending reminders to the Railway Board. On 15-12-1959, the Railway Board had asked for clarification from him. He had also been assured by the then General and Deputy General Managers, in 1961, that his case would be decided to his satisfaction. Furthermore, he alleged that he wrote to the General Manager on 16-3-1962, and, again on 22-3-1962. to find out the result of his appeal, but he received no answer. Therefore, finally, he served a notice on 24-9-1962 under Section 80 Civil Procedure Code upon the General Manager. North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur, and the Union of India. He claimed that Rs. 21,088,04 was due to him as arrears of salary and allowances. He filed his suit on 27-11-62 for a declaration that from 1-7-1949, the date of illegal reversion, up to 30-9-1959, the date of the appellant's retirement, he was a Railway employee on a salary ranging from Rs. 450/- to Rs. 575/- per month, together with 20% special pay from 10-5-1956 to 30-9-1959 and increased gratuity, and that, after his retirement, he became entitled to the appropriate pension and gratuity allowance. He had also demanded payment of a sum of Rs.19,795/- the details of which were given in a schedule, after relinquishing Rs. 1,293.04 and interest.
(2.) The defendant's version was : The plaintiff, who was an Assistant Office Superintendent from 29-9-1948, was promoted to officiate as Office Superintendent with effect from 12-7-1948 in the scale of Rs. 360-500 with a clear stipulation that the promotion was subject to the plaintiff's selection subsequently and would not give him any claim to the post. It was admitted that the plaintiff was appointed to officiate as Assistant Office Superintendent from 21-1-1949, but, it was alleged that, during the period of 18 days for which he held this post upto 7-2-1 1949, and, even after that, the plaintiff had illegally utilised certain passes obtained under his signatures. A Selection Board, which met in 12-2-1949, for selection to the post of Office Superintendent , did not find the plaintiff to be the most suitable candidate. Hence, the plaintiff was reverted to the post of Assistant Office Superintendent from 14-2-1949. The plaintiff was again prompted to officiate as Office Superintendent with effect from 11-5-1949, but he was again reverted to his substantive post with effect from 1-7-1949 as a result of the charge sheet against him. The Railway administration had decided to appoint a second Selection Board after cancelling the appointment of the first one. The second Selection Board, which met on 11-11-1949, placed the appellant only second in order of merit so that the appellant had to continue as Assistant Office Superintendent. Hence, no question of his promotion as Office Superintendent arose. Furthermore, it was started that the post of the Office Superintendent itself was held in abeyance from 1-7-1949 but, another post of Assistant Office Superintendent was created in its place. It was, therefore, submitted that the plaintiff could never have held a post which was in abeyance. It was asserted that the plaintiff was given reasonable opportunity for showing cause against the action proposed to be taken again, him before his reversion, and that, after 1-7-1949, as a result of the representations made by the plaintiff, the General Manager gave the plaintiff a personal hearing and also appointed a Committee of three officers to examine the whole case of the plaintiff, including alleged withdrawal of the charges against him. The Committee reported to the General Manager that the remark made by the Deputy General Manager that no stigma was attached to the plaintiff was not justified. Nevertheless, the General Manager had directed payment of Rs. 40/- per month for the period from 1-7-1949 to 31-5-1951 for the extra work done by the plaintiff in addition to his duties as Assistant Office Superintendent. The jurisdiction of the Court to question the reversion from a merely officiating post was challenged. Furthermore, it was alleged that the plaintiff had knowledge of the dismissal of his appeal as he working in the office of the General Manager as Assistant Office Superintendent. The plea of limitation was also raised in defence.
(3.) The Trail Court, while dismissing the suit in toto and held that the suit was maintainable. This finding was upheld by the High Court on the plaintiff's appeal which was allowed only to the extent that Rs. 180/- was decreed as within time as the suit for the remaining arrears of salary was held barred by Article 102 of Limitation Act of 1908. The Trial Court had denied any declaration to the plaintiff, but the High Court had decreed the suit for declaration in the following terms: "The suit, therefore, is also decreed for the declaration that the plaintiff, on being superannuated, became entitled to get gratuity and pension, as admissible under the service rules applicable to the case, on the basis that he retired as Office Superintendent in the grade of Rs. 360-500. It would, of course, now be open to the plaintiff to move the Authorities concerned for gratuity and pension in accordance with the declamatory decree passed by this Court in his favour".;