LexSITA RAM GOEL versus THE MUNICIPAL BOARD, KANPUR AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
.A.ugust z9. • -. • 1148 t • SUPREME COURT REPORTS SITA RAM GOEL v • [1959] THE MUNICIPAL BOARD, KANPUR AND OTHERS (S. R. DAS c. J., BHAGWATI,. s. K. DAS, J. L. KAPUR and SuBBA RAo JJ.) Limitation-Dismissal of employee by _Municipal Board-Rejec- tion of appeal to Government-Suit against order of dismissal after disposal of appeal-Period of limitation-U. P. Muni<ipalities Act, I9I6 (U. P. 2 of I9I6), ss. 58, 69, 326. The appellant was appointed as overseer by the Municipal Board, Kanpur, on March 5, 1937. and continued in its service up to March 19, 1951, when a copy of the resolution passed by the Board on March 5, 1951, purporting to dismiss him from service · was.handed over to him. On April 7, 1951, he filed an appeal to the Government against the order of dismissal from service, but he was informed on April 8, 1952, that his appeal was rejected. Thereafter on December 8, 1952, the appellant instituted a suit challenging the legality of the order of dismissal on various grounds, and the question arose whether the suit-was within time. Sub-section (1) of s. 326 of the U. P. Municipalities Act, 1916, provided that no suit shall be instituted against a Municipal Board "until t4e expiration of the two months n~xt after notice in writing has been left at the office of . the Board ... explicitly stating the cause of action"; and sub-s. (3) stated that "no action "'1Ch as is described in sub-s. (1) shall ... be commenced otherwise than within six months riext after the accr1,1al of the cause of action". The appellant contended that the cause of action accrued to him on April 8, 1952, when the order of dis- missal of his appeal to the Government was communicated to him and the suit, filed within eight months of that date, was within time, and relied on. the provisions of s. 58 (r) and (2), read with s. 69, of the Act, which gave an officer dismissed by the Board a right .of app_eal to the Government within 30 days of the com- munication to him of the order dismissal : Held, that though the order passed by the Board on March 5, 1951, was subject to a right of appeal to the Government, the operation of the order was not suspended by the mere filing of the appeal, and the order became effective from March 19, 1951, when- it was communicated to the appellant. The cause of actfon, therefore, accrued to him on that date, and the s1,1it filed by him on December 8, 1952, was barred by limitation under s. 326 of the U. P. M1,1nicipalities Act, 1916. CrvIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 149of1958: • r ' ' ; • S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 1149 Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated September 2, 1957, of the Allahabad High Court in First Appeal No. 474 of 1956, arising out of the · judgment and order dated July 30, 1956, of the :First Addittonal Civil Judge, Kanpur, in Civil Suit No. 257 of 1953. Appellant in person. C. B. Gupta, G. 0. Mathur and 0. P. Lal, for respon- dent No. I. G. 0. Mathur and 0. P. Lal, for respondent No. 4. 1958. August 19. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BHAGWATI J.-This appeal with special leave under Art. 136 of the Constitution raises an interesting ques- tion of limitation. The appellant was appointed an Overseer by the Municipal Board, Kanpur, on March 5, 1937, with the approval of the Superintending Engineer, Public Health Department, Lucknow. He was confirmed by the Board's special resolution dated July 2, 1938, and continued in employ up to March 19, 1951, when a copy of the resolution No. 1723 passed by the Board on March 5, 1951, purporting to dismiss him frnm employ was handed over to him. Against the said resolution dated March 5, 1951, the appellant filed an appeal to the Uttar Pradesh Government on April 7, 1951, but was informed by a G. 0. dated April 7, 1952, that his appeal :Md been rejected. This information was received by him on April 8, 1952. Thereafter on December 8, 1952, the appellant filed the suit out of which the present appeal arises, being Suit No. 257 of 1953 in the Court of the Additional Civil Judge, Kan- pur, impleading the Municipal Board, Kanpur, Shri · S. B. Gupta, Municipal Engineer, Shri Brahmanand Misra, the then Chairman of the Municipal Board and the Government of Uttar Pradesh as defendants and challenged the legality of the dismissal order passeq Sita Ram Goel v. The Municipal Board, Kanpur Bhagwati ]. • 1 against him on the gr
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.