- (1.) THE respondent who was an employee of the Govern-ment in the Railway Department was placed under supension with effect from 29th October, 1959. His services were terminated by the General Manager, Northern Railway by an order dated ? the December, 1960 in terms of Rule 149 (3) of the Indian Railway Establishment Code. Volume 1, with effect from 13th December, I960. The Supreme Court on December 5, 1963 decided by majority in Moti Rum Deka v. General Manager, North East Frontier Railway [1964-11 L. L. J. 467]; A. I R 1964 S. C. 600, that Rules 148 (3) and 149 (3) of the Indian Railway Establish-ment Code were invalid On 20th July. 1965 the petitioner submitted a representation to the General Manager, Northern Railway seeking a review of the order dated 6th December, I960 by which his services had been terminated. Ultimately by an order dated 23rd September, 1966 the petitioner's " representation " was accepted and he was reinstated in service, vide Annexure 2 to the writ petition. Subsequently, by another order contained in Annexure 3 to the writ petition dated 23rd January, 1967 the earlier office note contained in Annexure 2 was superseded and the petitioner was on reinstatement posted in C. R. Section. Thereafter by Annexure 4 it was stated tat the petitioner's suspension period from 20-10-1959 to 22-1-1967 had been treated as on duty. It was. however, also stated that the petitioner would be entitled for payment of three years' salary only prior to the date of reinstatement under the law of limitation. Further. it was mentioned therein that the petitioner had been " reinstated in service from 23rd January, 1967 as per notice No. 817 E/1/1-A, dated 23-1-1967. " The petitioner was accordingly paid arrears of his salary for three years only on 6th November, 19b7 for the period 23-1-1964 to 22-1-1967. He was thus denied payment of arrears of salary for the period 20 10-1959 to 22-1-1964. The petitioner then filed the writ petition, which has given rise to this appeal, on 29th January, 1963, i. e. , after a lapse of about 2? months of the order contained in Annexure 4 for a writ of certiorari to quash the order Annexure 4 along with a list by opposite party filed as paper No. 4 along with a list by opposite party on 15th May, 1971 in so far as they deprived the petitioner of his arrears of salary for the said period 20th October, 1959 to 22nd January, 1964 and for a writ in the nature of mand mus directing the opposite parties to pay him his salary and allowance for the said period together with such increments as he would have normally drawn had he not been removed from service,
(2.) THE Union of India contested the writ petition principally on the ground that no mandamus can issue directing them to pay salary and allowances to the petitioner which on the date of his reinstatement had become barred by time and that the petition being highly belated was not maintainable.
(3.) THE learned single Judge, having relied on Hart Raj Singh v. Sanchalak Panchayet Raj, Lucknow came to the conclusion that the petitioner was not guilty of any laches so as to disentitle him to the relief prayed for under Article 226 of the Constitution and that the consensus of judicial authority leans in favour of the view that the High Court has power in appropriate cases to issue a direction for payment of money to safe-guard the rights of the petitioner in a petition under Art 226 of the Constitution. He, therefore, allowed the petition and quashed the impugned order contained in Annexure 4 as also the supplementary advice filed as paper No. 4 in so far as they deprived the petitioner of his arrears of salary from 20-10-1959 to 22-l-1964 as also the statement therein that the petitioner was entitled to three years' salary and issued a direction to the opposite p-arty to pay the petitioner his salary and allowances for the said period together with such increments as he would have normally drawn had he not been removed from ser. vice. Aggrieved by that decision the Divisional Superintendent and the Divisional Accounts Officer, Lucknow Division have preferred this special appeal.;