U. C. Srivastava. J. - (1.) THIS. reference to the Full Bench has been made by the Chief Justice in view of doubts and observations made by the Division Bench of this. Court in the special appeal filed by the opposite party is which it was held that the writ petition filed by the opposite party for enforcement of a contractual liability was not maintainable but the appeal was allowed so far as it related to the arrears of salary and the Government was directed to determine the pension and pay the same. The question was whether the judgment so pronounced will operate as res judicata.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts are that opposite party Madan Mohan Khanna was working in the office of sales tax department. He was dismissed from service. He filed a civil suit which was decreed. Against the said order, the State of U. P. filed a second appeal which too was dismissed vide order dated 13f-3-1970. During the pendency of appeal, opposite party no. 1 attained the age of superannuation on 1-9-1967. After dismissal of second appeal opposite party no. 1 filed a writ petition for ' payment of arrears of salary which was allowed but the officers of the sales tax department have failed to comply with the decree. . . The opposite party made several representations but without any result. The Sales Tax- Officer, Sahartmpur although admitted his claim but he has informed the opposite party that according, to the information .of Head Office the arrears of pay for the period from 27th January to l-SMl$f7 is barred by time and so the payment of the amount is not necessary. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this court and the learned single judge after hearing both the parties {Allowed the writ petition and directed the Government to make payment of arrears of salary. Against tie, said Judgment special appeal was filed by the State Government. 11 is to be noticed that prior to filing of writ petition, opposite party had filed a suit for recovery of arrears of salary when the plea of limitation was raised, the opposite party withdrew the suit. From the facts between the parties, it appears that the order Of withdrawal was challenged by the State Government and the order of withdrawal was set aside by this court and the suit thus become pending again. The suit abated under u/Sec. 6 of Public Services Tribunals' Act and as such the case was referred to the Public Services Tribunal (here-in-after referred to as the Tribunal). The Tribunal vide its judgment and order, dated 10-11- 1981 allowed the claim of the petitioner and directed the State Government to pay him arrears of salary. Against the judgment passed by the Tribunal, the State Government has filed the instant writ petition in which this reference has been made to the Full Bench.
(3.) THE Tribunal relied on the ease of Hariraj Singh v. Sanchatali Panchayatraj, 1968 SLR 851, in which it was observed that the Limitatidn Act applies only to suits, appeals and applications filed in a court but has no application outside these proceedings. Furthermore, the Government by issuing the G. O. of 1952 and framing rule 26 of the Government servants conduct Rules requiring its servants to exhaust their departmental remedies before seeking their remedies in court impliedly conceded that the law of limitation did not apply to a Government servant's claim on reinstatement to be paid his salary and all allowances. THErefore, through* Article 102 of the Limitation Act bars a Civil suit for the recovery of salary or wages due if it is filed beyond time, it has no application " when a competent Authority is considering what salary and allowances are payable to a Government servant after he is reinstated in service in pursuance of* a decision, of the Court. If that authority rejects the claim of the Government servant bp the ground that it is barred by limitation, its decision is based on an irrelevant or extraneous consideration and illegal. The first question for consideration is as to whether findings recorded by the Division Bench is special appeal would hold good When the Bench itself dismissed the writ petition on the ground that if was for enforcement Of contractual liability hence hot maintainable. It was in this background that the suit filed by the petitioner has been withdrawn. The suit was later on revived and it was abated and referred to the Tribunal by operation of law as indicated above.;