LexJAI CHAND SAWHNEY versus UNION OF INDIA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
222
JAi CHAND SAWHNEY
v.
UNION OF INDIA
October 31, 1969
[J. C. SHAH AND K. S. HEGDE, JJ.]
Limila(ion Act (9 of 1908),. Art. 102-App/icabilit,v to Government
St'rl-'ants--Order of dis1nissal of. Government servant set aside-Salt1ry of
such servant when 'accrues due' under the article.
l~he appellant, a railway employee, was dismissed from
service
on
October 13, 1949.
On October 13, 1955, he filed a suit, aiainst the
respondent, far setting aside the order of dismissal and for
arrears of
s:ilary. The Order of dismissal was s!t aside on the ground of failure to
.;1fford the constitutional protection provided under s. 240 of the Govern~
ment of India Act, 1935.
On the question of the perioU for which he wits entitled to arrears of
:salary,
HELD : A suit by a servant of the Crown for arrears of salary is
:governed by Ar,. 162 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908. [223 F]
Shri Madhav Laxnu1n Vaikunthe v. The State of Mysore.
[1962] 1
S.C.R. 886, followed.
The period of limitation under Art. 102 is 3 years, and commences
to run when the salary accrues due. The salary accrues due when 1 in Jaw,
the servant become; entitled to it. [224 C-DJ
In the present case, whe~ the order of dismissal was set aside, ·the
appellant was deemed to be in service throughout the period during which
the order of dismissal r.emaincd operative. Therefore the appellant's right
to sue fOr his salary arose at the end of every month in which he was
unlawfully prevented from earning it.
Hence, his claim for salary for
the period prior lo 3 years from the date of the suit was barred.
Rule
2042 of the Railway Establishment Code which provides that the pay and
allowances of a dismissed railway servant cease from the date of dismissal
<1oes not operate to make the salary cccrue due on the date of the in-stitu-
tion of the suit for setting aside the order of dismissal. [224 D-F]
Jn computing the period of limitation the p~riod of statutory notice of
two months should be excluded unde< s. 15 of the Limitation Act. There-
fore, the appellant was entitled to salary for three years and two months
prior to the data of the suit. [224G-H]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 561 of
1967.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated
May 22, 1962 of the Punjab High Court, Circuit Bench at Delhi
in Regular First appeal No. 92-D of 1959.
B. C. Misra, Urmila Kapoor and B. Ram Rakhiani, for the
appellant.
Jagadish Swarup, Solicitor-General and S. P. Nayar, for the
respondent.
A
u
c
D
E
F
G
H
B
c
()
E
F
G
H
J. C. SAWHNEY v. 'UNION (Shah, J.)
223
The Judgment of the Court was deli7ered by ,
Shah, J.-Jai Chand Sawhney-hereinaftet called 'the plain-
tiff'-was removed from service undet the East Punjab Railway,
by order dated .October 1.3, 1949.
He sued the Union of India
in the Court of the Subor\linate Judge, Hissar, for selling aside the
order o( removal on the- grounds--(i) that the order was made.
by an authority subordinate to th~ appointing authority; and (ii)
that he was not given an opportunity to show cause against the
action proposed to be "taken in regard to him as required by s. 240
of the Government of India A'ct, 1935. The plaintiff· also claimed
a 'decree for Rs. 20,399 /9 /- being the amount of arrears of salary
and damages for wrongful ·termination of employfnent.
The
Trial Gour't declared that the disiniS>·al' was "illegal and void .. ,
and decreed the claim for Rs. 9,335-35 for arrears of sala~ - -
Against the decree passed by the Trial Court the plaintiff and
the Union of India appealed to the High Court of :Piunjab.
The
plaintiff's appeal was dismissed. The Union's appeal was also dis-
missed.
The plaintiff was awarded arrears of salary for
three
years prior to the date .of the suit. :With sp_ecial leave, the plaintiff
has appca lee( to this Court.
It was held by the Federal Court in The PiJn/ab Provin/:e v.
Pandit Tarachand(') that the expression "wages" in Article 102
in the Schedule to the Limitation. Act includes salary, and there-
iore a suit by a servant of the Crowrl for arrears of salary is govern-
ed by Art. l 02 of the Indian LiTQitation Act. That view was
reiterated by this Court in
Shri Madha1· Laxman Vaikunthe v.
T/le S!ate of Mysore,(') it was held that the claim in a suit
fdr arrears of salary du~ to a servant of the State who was revertec.l
to his ·substantive ran~ ·is governed by Art. I 02 of the Indian
Limitation AExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.