JUDGMENT

CHANDRACHUD, J.:—On Aug, 26, 1938, the appellant was appointed 387 as a clerk by the Divisional Superintendent, East Indian Railway and was confirmed in that post on Aug. 26, 1939. On May 13, 1948 while he was working in the grade of Senior Clerk in the Establishment (Personnel) Branch, his name was put on a panel which was prepared or considering promotions to Selection Posts of Grade I Clerks for the Personnel Branch of the Divisional Superintendents Office, Lucknow. The appellant officiated twice in the Selection Posts of Grade I. On July 13, 1948, he was again put on a panel for being considered for promotion to the post of Grade I Clerk in the same Group of the Service as controlled by the Headquarters Office.

2. During the course of the Selection proceedings in 1948 a complaint was made against the appellant that he had drawn ration on the ration cards of porters who had already been discharged from service. A preliminary enquiry was held by the Railway Authorities into that complaint as a result of which the appellant was suspended from service. Later, by an order dated October 20 1948, the Divisional Superintendent removed the appellant from service.

3. On Sept. 5, 1949, the appellant filed Regular Suit No. 748 of 1949 in the Court of the Munsif (South) Lucknow for a declaration that his dismissal from service was wrongful and for arrears of salary. That suit was dismissed on Aug. 20, 1951. An appeal therefrom was also dismissed by the Civil Judge on May 31, 1952. The appellant then filed a Second Appeal in the High Court which met with the same fate. The learned single Judge, however, granted leave to the appellant to file a special appeal to a Division Bench, in pursuance of which the appellant filed Special Appeal No. 14 of 1954 in the High Court. By judgment dated April 22. 1955, the Division Bench allowed the special appeal on the ground that the Divisional Superintendent was not competent to terminate the appellants service as that power was vested in the General Manager only. The Division Bench, therefore, remanded the matter to the learned Civil Judge for determination of the amount which was due to the appellant on the basis that he was wrongfully dismissed from service.

4. While the suit was pending in the Trial Court after the order of remand passed by the High Court, the General Manager passed an order on November 2, 1955 dismissing the appellant from service with effect from that date. On May 17, 1956, the learned Civil Judge recorded a finding in the remand proceedings that a sum of Rs. 22,196/8/- was due to the appellant by way of salary. While calculating this amount, the learned Judge held that the appellant would have earned three promotions in the interregnum and was. therefore, entitled to draw the emoluments attaching to the posts of promotion.

5. The Respondent. Union of India, filed an appeal against the findings of the Trial Court which was treated by the High Court as being in the nature of objections against the findings. By a Judgment dated Feb. 19, 1957, the High Court reduced the decretal amount of Rs. 22,196/8/- to Rs. 15,052/10/- rejecting the appellants claim for Compensatory City Allowance, House Rent Allowance and emoluments of the post of promotion.

6. On Jan. 2. 1959, the appellant sent a registered notice to the respondent under S. 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure in pursuance of which the present suit was filed on March 16, 1959 in the Court of Civil Judge, Lucknow. The trial Court passed a decree in favour of the appellant in the sun of Rs. 33,547-50. the learned Judge, however, rejected the appellants claim for a salary for two months and 13 days from Nov. 3, 1955 to Jan. 15, 1956 as being barred by limitation. The appellants claim for seniority and promotions was rejected by the learned Judge on the ground that it was barred by res judicata. The claim for interest was also negatived.

7. On Oct. 20, 1965, the appellant filed first appeal No. 15 of 1965 in the High Court of A