MAIMOONA KHATUN AND ANR. versus STATE OF U.P. AND ANR.

Citation: [1980] 3 S.C.R. 676 · Decided: 16-04-1980 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

676 
A 
MAIMOONA KHATUN AND ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. AND ANR. 
April 16, 1980 
B 
[S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, P. s. KAILASAM AND A. D. KosHAL, JI.] 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Arrears of pay and allowances consequent to reinstatement in service-Period 
of Limitation-The date from which the period should be computed whether date of 
reinstatement or when the salary become due-Limitation Act 1908 (Act IX o/1908}-
Article 102 (now Article 7 of the Act, 1963}-Scope of. 
APPe11ants are the widow and daughter of one Zamirul Hassan who was 
employed as a tttbewell technician in the Irrigation Department of U. P ~ Govern .. 
men!. In the year 1954, Zamirul Hassan was posted at Lucknow and was 
drawing a salary of Rs. !10/- per month plus Rs. 30/- as Dearness Allowance. 
He was granted medical leave from 15th Feb. 1954 to 24th April 1954 after 
which lie applied for extension of his leave which \Vas however, refused. As 
directed by the authorities, 
he reported 
for duty on 20th April, 1954. 
Instead of giving any charge of office, on that day, he was served with notice 
dated 27th March 1954 terminating bis services with immediate effect on the 
ground that he had reached the age of superannuation. Sri Hassan challen· 
ged the said order by a representation to the Chief Engineer Irrigation 
department. The Superintending Engineer accepted the plea of the employee 
by his order dated 31st December, 1955 and ordered his reinstatement direct· 
ing that the intervening period may be treated as leave admissible to him. 
Hassan was then po<ted to Mathura on 15·2-1956. On January 7, !957, 
however, Hassan suddenly fell ill at Budaun and died on January 12, 1957. 
Even in spite of his reinstatement, the employee did not receive his salary 
from 15th February 1954 to 14th February 1956 amounting to Rs. 3360/· 
as also from 1·1·57 to 12-1-57 which amounted to Rs. 53/·. Despite the claim 
the arrears of salary were not paid and hence the appellants plaintiffs after 
giving notice under section 80 C.P.C., to the Government brought a suit 
for the recovery of Rs. 3035-5-0. The plea of bar of limitation taken by 
the respondent Government was disallowed and the suit was decreed. The 
trial eourt decreed the plaintiff's suit after coming to a clear finding that the 
employee, Zamirul Ha:1,an, should have been treated to be on duty during the 
entire period because he was illegaUy pervented from doing his duty. As 
a logical conclusion of this finding, the trial court also held that the employee 
was entitled to bis pay at the rate claimed by him for the period mentioned 
in the plaint. It was further held by the trial court that on the representation 
of the employee, his services were ful1y restored and he ,..as tbereforo entitled 
to his full salary. The First Appellate Court confirmed it. The High Court 
in second appeal accepted the plea of bar of limitation under Art. 102 of 
Limitation Act, 1908; but affirmed the finding of fact that Hassan ·was 
illegally prevented from duty. 
Allowing the appeal by special leave, the Court 
HELD : 1. In cases, where an employee is dismissed or removed from service 
aa::l is reiostate::l either by the appointing authority or by virtue of tl\e order of 
t 
+ 
• 
M. M. KHATUN V· U.P. STATE 
677 
dismissS:l or removal being set aside by a civil court, the starting Potnt of limitation 
would be not the date of the order of dismissal or removal but the date when the right 
actually accrues, that is to say, the date of the reinstatement, by the appointing 
authority where no suit is filed or the date of the decree where a suit is filed and 
decrood. 
2. The right to sue under Article 102 of the Limitation Act, 1908 (now Art. 
7 of 1963 AC!) would accrue only after the order of dismissal of the employee is set 
aside or he is reinstated by the appointing authority concerned. Until this stage is 
reached the right to recover arrears of salary does not accrue at all and there is no 
question of suing for the arrears of salary when no order of reinstatement had been 
passed or the order of dismissal has not been held by a court of law to be void. 
[683 B-D] 
The tern1inusquo for the suit under Article 102 is the accrual of the salary which 
by reason of F. R. 52 cases the moment an order of dismissal or removal is made, 
Thus until a decree holding the order of dismissal or removal to be void is passed 
by the Court, it is not open to the employee to take any steps for recovering his salary. 
In other words~ the right to r

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.