STATE OF A.P. THROUGH THE CHIEF SECY. GOVT. OF HYDERABAD, NOW A.P. Vs. SHAIK SABHANUDDIN ALLAHUADIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals arise out of the judgment of the Third Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, at Secunderabad, in O. S. No. 55 of 1950. The plaintiff in this suit was a Sub-Inspector, who served in the former Government of Hyderabad. He was appointed on 1-8-1947. In the course of his service, he was attached to the Railway Police. There was a departmental enquiry against him on charges of alleged misconduct in the discharge of his official duties, and he was discharged from service by an order of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, C.I.D. and Railways dated 7-8-1950. The Government rejected his appeal against the order discharging him. Thereafter he instituted a suit on 31-1-1955 for a declaration that the order of suspension dated 30-1-1950 and the order of discharge dated 7-8-1950 were null and void and claiming consequential reliefs of reinstatement, damages and arrears of salary against the Government. He filed the suit in forma pauperis claiming Rs. 10,000/- as and for damages for his mental worry and the balance as arrears of salary from the date of his suspension. The suit was dismissed under its old No. O. Section 37 of 1955 in the first instance on 18-4-1956. He appealed against the said Judgment dismissing his suit, and a Division Bench of this Court allowed his appeal. A. Section 65 of 1958, finding that the officer who passed the order of discharge had not given him the notice contemplated under Article 311(2) of the Constitution and so the order of discharge could not be sustained. So, the learned Judges remanded the suit for consideration of the other issues. The learned advocate for the plaintiff would appear to have filed a memo before the trial Court on 10-12-1950 stating that in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court only issues 7 and 8 fell to be considered. These issues related to the damages claimed by the plaintiff, arrears of salary and other incidental reliefs. No fresh evidence was let in after remand. Arguments were addressed by the counsel on either side. An additional issue was, however, settled at the instance of the learned Government Pleader whether the suit was barred by time. The learned trial Judge held that the order discharging the appellant was null and void and inoperative, that the suit was governed by Article 120 of the Limitation Act and was, therefore, in time, and decreed the suit for arrears of salary from the date of suspension upto the date of filing the suit. He also directed reinstatement of the plaintiff in service. The damages prayed for were rejected. The suit being in forma papueris, the trial Court decreed that the plaintiff and the defendant shall pay the Court-fee in equal moieties. Against the said judgment and decree of the trial Court, the Government of Andhra Pradesh, defendant in the suit, being the successor Government, has preferred C. C. C. A. 63 of 1961. The plaintiff preferred an appeal, C. C. C. A. 24 of 1962 claiming that he should have been granted salary till actual reinstatement and seniority and ether consequential benefits.

(2.) In support of the appeal preferred by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, the learned Government Pleader has raised two points : Firstly, that Article 14 of the limitation Act governs the suit and not Article 120 as found by the learned trial Judge and so the suit is barred by time. Secondly, that the plaintiff would band entitled to arrears of salary for only three years prior to suit under Article 102 of the Indian Limitation Act, and that the judgment of the trial Court awarding him arrears of salary from the date of his suspension i.e. 30-1-1950 till the date of his filing the suit i.e. 31-1-1955 is wrong.

(3.) Taking the first point, it is appropriate that peruse Article 14 of the Indian Limitation Act, which is as follows:- Description of suit.Period of limitation.Time from which limitation, period begins to run.