- (1.) This judgment will govern Civil Revision Nos. 92 and 94 both of 1973 which have been filed by Radhey Shyam Misra against Divisional Personnel Officer, N. E. Rly., Lucknow and others.
(2.) The brief facts of the case were that the revisionist who was a clerk in the office of the Divisional Engineer, N. E. Railway, Lucknow was dismissed by the Divisional Engineer under his order dated 16-10-1960, He filed a suit in the Civil Court in the year 1962 challenging the validity of that dismissal order. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court. But the appeal filed bv the revisionist against that judgment had decree was allowed by the lower appellate court on 3-8-1964 when the dismissal order was quashed as being void. Against that decision the railway administration filed a second appeal in this Court which was dismissed on 22-5-1969. On 29-5-1969 the revisionist filed an application under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act before the Prescribed Authority claiming his salary and other allowances for the period from 18-10-1960 to 30-4-1969. Though part of the claim was time barred, the Prescribed Authority condoned the delay and treated the entire claim as within limitation. The claim of the revisionist was partly allowed and partly dismissed by the Prescribed Authority. Against the direction given by the Prescribed Authority both the parties filed appeals before the District Judge under Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act. Those appeals were numbered as Misc. Appeal No. 69 of 1972 and Misc. Appeal No. 75 of 1972. Both those appeals were disposed of by the learned Additional District Judge, Lucknow under his judgment dated 19-2-73. On the appeal filed by the railway administration, which was appeal No. 69 of 1972 the learned District Judge was of the opinion that the application was barred by limitation and the Prescribed Authority was not justified in condoning the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. He did not go into other questions raised on behalf of the railway administration in that appeal, nor did he decide the appeal of the revisionist (Appeal No. 75 of 1972) on merits against that part of the direction given by the Prescribed Authority in which part of his claim had been disallowed. He allowed Appeal No. 69 of 1972 on the ground of limitation and set aside the direction given by the Prescribed Authoritv that a sum of Rs. 14138.00 shall be paid by the railway administration to the revisionist. Feeling aggrieved by that decision the revisionist has filed these two revisions in this Court.
(3.) I heard the learned counsel for the parties.;