N.U. Beg, J. - (1.) This is an application made by one Kailash Chandra under Article 132 (1) and Article 133 (1) (c) of the Constitution of India. The applicant subsequently applied for an amendment to the effect that this application might also be treated as an application under Article 133 (1) (b) of the Constitution. This application was allowed and the applicant has made the necessary amendments in this regard. The applicant was employed as a ministerial railway servant in the E. I. Railway. He was working as a sub-head in the Divisional Accounts Office of the East Indian Railway at Lucknow. He was compulsorily retired from service on 30-6-1948 on attaining the age of 55 years. Thereafter the applicant brought a suit out of which the present proceedings have arisen. In the suit lie prayed for a declaration that the plaintiff's compulsory retirement on 30-6-1948 on attaining the age of 55 years was illegal and ultra vires as under the railway rules he had the right to continue in service till he attained the age of 60 years. The plaintiff also claimed an amount of Rs. 14,777/ 6/- as arrears of dues payable to him. The details of this amount were given in para 5 of his plaint. They comprised his salary, dearness allowance and city allowance, which according to him, were payable to him from 1-7-1948 to 31-7-52 that is, for a period of four years.
(2.) The suit came up for trial before the learned Civil Judge, Mohanlalganj, Lucknow, who decreed the suit on 30-9-1955. Dissatisfied with the said judgment an appeal was filed in the High Court by the Union of India. This was First Appeal No. 3 of 1956. On 20-11-1958 a Bench of this Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the plaintiff's suit. It may also be mentioned that the present applicant had also filed a cross objection in that appeal. That cross objection was also dismissed. Thereafter the plaintiff has filed 'the present application in this Court.
(3.) At the very outset, the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the present application was covered by the provisions of Article 133 (1) (b) of the Constitution. He, therefore, argued that in this view of the matter Pie would be enti-tled to the certificate prayed for as a matter of right. In this connection he submitted that the present claim of the plaintiff related to an amount of Rs. 14,777/6/-. He invited our attention to the fact that subsequently the plaintiff had filed another suit making a similar claim and that suit was decreed by the Civil Judge for an amount of Rs. 5,330/10/-. Adding the two claims in the two suits the learned counsel contended, that the value of the claim made by the plaintiff in the present case would exceed an amount of Rs. 20,000/-. Having heard learned counsel for the applicant on this aspect of the case, we find it difficult to uphold this contention. It may be mentioned in this connection that the present case of the applicant was that his compulsory retirement at the age of 55 years on 30-6-1948 was bad in law. The plaintiffs case was that he was entitled to remain in service upto the age of 60 years. In other words, at the most the plaintiff could claim according to his present case, the emoluments accruing to him for a period of five years and no more. In para 5 of the plaint filed by the plaintiff, the plaintiff has given the details of the sum of Rs. 14,777/6/- which he claimed in the present case. According to the details given in para 5 mentioned above, this amount covers the entire claim of the plaintiff for a full period of four years. At the most, therefore, the plaintiff could only claim emoluments in a similar manner for another period of one year. One-fourth of the amount claimed by the plaintiff would come to an amount of Rs. 3,694/4/-. Even if this amount is added to the amount claimed by the plaintiff it would appear that the figure would not exceed the sum of Rs. 20,000/- & would only be Rs. 18,000/- & odd. In this view of the matter we are of opinion that the preseat case cannot be covered by the provisions of Article 133 (1) (b) of the Constitution.;