LexSAKAL DEEP SAHAI SRIVASTAVA versus UNION OF. INDIA & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
8
c
D
G
H
485
SAKAL DEEP SAHA! SRIVASTAVA
v.
UNION OF. INDIA & ANR.
November 27, 1973
[K. K. MATHEW AND M. H. BEG, JJ.]
Lfmitation Act 1908 (9 of 1908) Art. toi-Arrears of salary of public servant
Govt. of India A.ct 1935.
The appellant, who was Assistant Office Superintendent; was promoted as Office
Superintendent but immediately thereafter was reverted after issuing a charge sheet
but without hold.in& an enquiry. He, however, continued to perform the duties of
Office Su~rintendcnt. A few months later charges against him were withdrawn with
the remark that "no stigma was attached to him". Thereupon the appellant applied
to be reinstated in the post of Office Superintendent and for payment of arrears of his
salary. But his reversion order was .upheld with the remark that his guilt was estab--
lished. The appellant retired in 1959 and filed a suit in 1962 claiming arrears of salary
and allowances and for a declaration that from the date of reversion to the date of
retirement he was a Railway employee on a salary ranging from Rs. 400 to 575
and for certain other benefits.
The trial court, while dismissing the suit in toto, had held (i) the.t the suit was
maintainable but denied any declaration to him and (ii) that the order of demotion
passed against him was illegal. The High Court decreed the suit and held that the
suit for arrears of salary, except to the extent of Rs. 180{- was barred by art. 102
of the Limitation Act, .1908. The H:igh Court further held that the action against the
appellafit being penal and violative of the constitutional protection afforded by s.
240(3) of the Government of India Act, 1935 was void and, therefore, could be ignored
as non est.
[489F·H]
On the question (i) whether art. 102 of the Limitation Act would apply to the
case and (ii) whether a declaration· was needed for enforcing a claim which fell within
time. Allowing the appeal in part.
HELD : (1) In Shri Madhav lAxman Yaikunthe v. The State of Mysore (1962)
1 SCR 886, which view was reiterated in two later decisions, it was held that art.
102 of the Limitation Act would apply to a case of this kind. Though_ a good deal
can be said in favour of the contention that a claim for arrears of salary is distinguish·
able from a claim for wages, the question is no longer open for consideration afresh.
It is not advisable to review the authorities of this Court aft~r, such a. lapse of time
when, despite the view taken by this Court that .article 102 of the Limitation Act,
1908 was appJicable tri cases of this kind, the Limitation Act of 1963 had been passed
repeating the law, contained in article 102 of the Limitation Act, 1908, in identical
terms without any modification. -The legislature must be presumed to be cognirant
of the view of this Court that a claim of th~ nature, as in the instant case,
falls
within the purview of article 102 of the Limitation Act, 1908. If Parliament, which is
deemed to be aware of the declarations of law by this Court, did not alter the Jaw
it must be deemed to have accepted the interpretation of this Court even though
the correctness of it may be open to doubt. It was for the legislatute to clear these
doubts. When the legislature has not done so despite the repeal of the Limitation
Act 1908 and the enactment of the Limitation Act, 1963 after the decision of this
Court ~t i.s inex~ent to re-exami_ne the correctness of the view adopted by this
Court m its dects1ons on the question. [~89·FH]
·
The Punjab Province v. Pandit T{lrachand [1947] F.C.R. 89, 93, 108, Jai Chand
Sawhney v • . U.nlo'! _of India [1969]{1/I) S.C.C. p. 642 and State of Andhra Pradesh
v .. Kutubudd1n, C1vd Appeal No. 2289of1966 decided on 8·10-69, referred to.
.
(2) 1:he High Court Was right in treating the order of reversion to be void and
mo~ttve o!. non ~st. The!ff.ore no declaration was needed for the purpose of
enforc:1n~ a claim which fell -.y1thm three years.- Consequently only the amount which
fell within 3 years of the suit could be decreed in accordance· with the statement of
the counsel for the respondent.
{490F]
486
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1974] 2 s.c.a.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal 1236of1970.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Decree dated.the
6th November, 1968 of the Allahabad High Court in First Appeal
No. 361 of 1964. ·
Yogeshwar Prasad, S. K. Bagga and S. Bagga; for .the Appellant.
S. N. Prasad and S. P. Nayar, for the RespondExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.