- (1.)THIS civil 1st appeal (wrongly styled as letters patent appeal) is directed against the judgment and decree of a learned Single Judge of this court passed in civil suit No. 56 of 1976 decided on November, 1, 1973.
(2.)IN a nutshell the facts of the case are as follows: - Plaintiff appellant was employed as a cashier in the Bombay Branch of the Government Arts Emporium. He was placed under suspension on March 3, 1956 on charges of certain misconduct and was subsequently, by order of the General Manager Kashmir Government Arts Emporium dated 14.7. 56, discharged from service. The appellant assailed the order of discharge on the ground that it was wrongful because he had not been served with any charge sheet or provided any opportunity of being heard in his defence. The appellant not only claimed his re -instatement but also the arrears of pay and allowance. The relief claimed by the appellant in the suit consisted of two declarations: -
(i) that he is entitled to re -instatement on the post of cashier or some equivalent post in the Government Arts Emporium, and (ii) that he is entitled to receive arrears of pay and allowances from March 3, 1956, till the date of his re -instatement.

(3.)THE respondents contested the claim of the appellant and raised certain preliminary objections. On July 22, 1969, the following four preliminary issues were raised in the case:
1) Is not the suit maintainable? If so, why? O. P. D. 2) Is the suit barred by Limitation? OPD 3) Was not a valid notice issued to the defendant in the case? O. P. D. 4) Has not adequate court fee been paid by the plaintiff on the plaint ? If so, what is the court fee payable? OPD.

Vide order of the court dated January 6, 1973, Issue no. 1 was decided against the appellant The learned Single Judge opined that the appellant should more appropriately have sued for the recovery of the probable amount which was due to him on account of arrears of pay In this view of the matter, it was found that the suit, as framed, was not maintainable. The plaintiff was, however, afforded an opportunity to amend the plaint on payment of costs. In pursuance of that order, the appellant -plaintiff filed the amended plaint and paid court fee on the amended plaint. After proper court fee was paid by the plaintiff, in the opinion of the learned Single Judge, issue No. 4 was rendered redundant, Issue Nos 2 and 3 then came to be decided by the learned Single Judge by his Judgment and decree dated November 1, 1973, which is under appeal.