Gokal Chand Mital, J. - (1.) DR . Partap Singh was a Civil Surgeon being in the service of the State of Punjab in the Health Department and was due to retire in the normal course on attaining the age of superannuation on 16th of June, 1961. Since he had some leave to his credit, he proceeded on leave preparatory to retirement on 18th of December, 1960. The State Government by order, dated 3rd of June, 1961, extended the period of his service beyond the date of his retirement till the conclusion of an enquiry which was instituted the same day on some allegations of misconduct etc. and by another order of the same date, he was placed under suspension. To impugn the afore said action, Dr. Partap Singh filed a civil writ petition in this Court which was dismissed on 4th of April, 1962, which decision is reported in S. Partap Singh v. State of Punjab : A.I.R. 1963 P&H 298. Against the decision of this Court, Dr. Partap Singh preferred an appeal before the Supreme Court which was allowed on 2nd of September, 1963, which judgment is reported in S. Partap Singh v. State of Punjab : A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 72. The Supreme Court held that the orders, dated 3rd of June, 1961, extending the period of service beyond retirement, ordering an enquiry against him. and placing him under suspension were issued at the instance of Shri Partap Singh Kairori, the then Chief Minister, Punjab, due to mala fides against him and were quashed on this basis alone.
(2.) IN pursuance of the order of the Supreme Court, the Governor of Punjab issued notification, dated 7th of December, 1963, cancelling the previous orders of the Government, dated 3rd of June, 1961 and notified that Dr. Partap Singh stood retired from service on 16th of June, 1961, on attaining the age of superannuation. Since no provision was made in the aforesaid notification for payment of dues to him nor any payment was made within a reasonable period thereafter, Dr. Partap Singh filed a civil suit on 1st of August, 1964, for recovery of Rs. 2,00,000 against the State of Punjab, through the Secretary to Government, Punjab, Department of Medical and Public Health, Chandigarh in the following manner: 1.A (i) Rs. 32,780 as arrears of pay, allowances, etc. for the period from June, 1961, to 7th December, 1963, during which period he was wrongfully retained in service, at the rate of Rs. 1,100 per mensem which was the last pay drawn by him; (ii) Rs. 14,900 on account of loss of income from private wards of district headquarter hospitals, examination and other fees as Civil Surgeon during the period 3rd of June, 1961, to 7th of December, 19631, at the rate of Rs. 500 per mensem, of which he was deprived on account of wrongful order of suspension; (iii) Rs. 6,320 on account of interest on the aforesaid two items at the rate of 12 per cent per annum; 1 -B. Rs. 15,000 on account of damages for lack of opportunity for proper exercise of the profession in an independent practice and other institutions at the district headquarter hospitals and other institutions under the Civil Surgeon. In this manner, the grand total under head I comes to Rs. 69,000. The aforesaid amount was claimed in the alternative on two more different grounds which have been detailed in the plaint as well as in the judgment of the trial Court and need not be reproduced here. II. Rs. 10,000 as damages for compulsory servitude against will, consent and violation of the Fundamental Rights of the Plaintiff under Article 19 of the Constitution. III. Rs. 19,000 on account of compound interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on the sum of Rs. 58,000 which was lyng to the credit of the Plaintiff in his Provident Fund, the payment of which was delayed from 3rd June, 1961, to 9th of December, 1963, minus the interest recoverable under Rule 13.13 of the Punjab General Provident Fund Rules. IV. and V. Under these heads a sum of Rs. 2,000 was claimed as personal expenses incurred in defending the enquiry and getting the same set aside and Rs. 500 for revocation of the leave. VI. Rs. 1,00,000 as damages for mental pain, worry, anxiety and strain on health and injury to his proper feelings of dignity and pride. The grand total of all the aforesaid claims came to Rs. 2,00,500 and by giving up the claim for Rs. 500, the relief was restricted to Rs. 2,00,000 only. The claim of the Plaintiff was opposed by the State of Punjab and on the contest of the parties, the following issues were framed: 1. Whether the suit is barred by Order 2, Rule 2, Code of Civil procedure O.P.D. 2. Whether the plaint does not disclose any cause of action against the Punjab State? O.P.D. 3. Whether, action against the Plaintiff was taken in_exercise of the sovereign function of the State and whether the action in tort does not lie against the State on that account and that it is not justiciable? O.P.D.
(3.) WHETHER the State of Punjab is not liable for acts of the Chief Minister? O.P.D.;