Judgement

N. H. GHAGWATI, J. : This appeal with special leave under Art. 136 of the Constitution raises an interesting question of limitation.

2. The appellant was appointed an Overseer by the Municipal Board, Kanpur, on 5-3-1937, with the approval of the Superintending Engineer, Public Health Department. Lucknow. He was confirmed by the Board s special resolution dated 2-7-1938, and continued in employ up to 19-3-1951, when a copy of the resolution No. 1723 passed by the Board on 5-3-1951, purporting to dismiss him from employ was handed over to him. Against the said resolution dated 5-3-1951, the appellant filed an appeal to the Uttar Pradesh Government on 7-4-1951, but was informed by a G. O. dated 7-4-1952, that his appeal had been rejected. This information was received by him on 8-4-1952. Thereafter on 8-12-1952, 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. Kanpur, 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 passed against him on the ground that the previous approval of the Superintending Engineer, Public Health Dept, was not taken as required by the rules, that the appellant was denied an opportunity of being heard in person by the Board, that no show-cause notice for the proposed punishment of dismissal was issued to him by the Board nor were the charges framed by it, that the dismissal order did not specify the charges, that some of the grounds on which he was dismissal did not form the subject-matter of the charges at all, that in any case, the charges framed were false and malicious. The appellant prayed for a declaration that the order of his dismissal was ultra vires, illegal, and void and claimed a total amount of Rs. 10,951 in respect of damages, allowances for doing officiating work, bonus, arrears of salary and provident fund.

3. The suit was contested mainly by the Board and its defence was to the effect that the order of dismissal was not vitiated on the grounds of illegality or irregularity and in any case the suit was barred by limitation.

4. The trial court found:

(a) that the appellant s substantive appointment was that of an Overseer and not that of a Drainage Overseer as claimed and the approval of the Superintending Engineer, Public Health Department, Lucknow, for his dismissal was not necessary;

(b) that the order of dismissal of the appellant was ultra vires on the ground that he was not given an opportunity of being personally heard by the Board;

(c) that no notice to show cause against the proposed punishment was issued by the Board;

(d) that the order of dismissal was based on certain grounds which were not the subject-matter of the charges and that the Chairman of the Board was not competent to try the appellant; but

(e) that the suit of the appellant was barred by limitation. The trial court accordingly dismissed the suit with costs.

5. The appellant carried an appeal being First Appeal No. 474 of 1956 before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and contended that the suit filed by him against the Board was within limitation. The appellant relied upon the provisions of S. 326 of the U. P Municipalities Act (U. P. II of 1916) (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and contended that the period of six months contemplated by sub-s. (3) of S. 326 plus the period of two months required for giving notice for filing the suit against the Board under sub-s. (1) of S. 326, that is, 8 months should be computed from 8-4-1952 on which date the order of the dismissal of his appeal by the U. P. Government was communicated to him and not from 5-3-1951, when the order of his dismissal by the Board was passed or 19-3-1951, when that order of dismissal was communicated to him by the Board.

6. The High Court was of opinion that th