JUDGMENT

FAZAL ALI, J. :— This appeal by special leave is directed against a judgment and decree dated February 11, 1969 passed by the Allahabad High Court modifying the decree passed by the lower Appellate Court and decreeing the plaintiffs claim for arrears of salary, etc., for a period of three years from the date of the suit adding two months to this period. The facts of the case lie within a narrow compass and may be summarised thus.

2. Zamirul Hassan (hereinafter refered to as the employee) was employed as a tubewell technician in the Irrigation Department of U. P. Government (hereinafter referred to as the Government). In the year 1954, Zamirul Hassan was posted at Lucknow and was drawing a salary of Rs. 110/- per month plus Rs. 30/- as Dearness Allowance. He was granted medical leave from 15th February, 1954 to 24th April, 1954 after which he applied for extension of his leave which was, however, refused. Accordingly the employee reported for duty on 20th April, 1954 but he was not given charge of office on that date. Instead the employee was served with notice dated 27th March, 1954 terminating his services with immediate effect on the ground that he had reached the age of superannuation. The employee challenged the validity of the notice through a representation given to the Chief Engineer. Irrigation Department, contending that as he was below 55 years of age; he could not be superanuated. Ultimately, the Superintending Engineer upheld the contention of the employee by his order dated 31st December, 1955 and ordered his reinstatement directing that the intervening period may be treated as leave admissible to him. The employee was then posted at Mathura on the 15th of February 1956. On January 7, 1957, however, the employee 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 1-1-1957 to 12-1-1957 which amounted to Rs. 53/-. Thus, the total amount which was claimed to be due to the employee up to the time of his death came to Rs. 3413/- which remained unpaid. On the death of the employee, his widow, the resent appellant along with her daughters, obtained a succession certificate and made a claim to the respondent-Government. Despite the claim the arrears of the salary of the employee were not paid and hence the present plaintiffs after giving notice, under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to the Government brought the present suit for recovery of RS. 3035-5-0. The Civil Judge held that the suit was not barred by time and decreed the suit. Thereafter, the Government went up in appeal to Appellate Court which confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial court. The Appellate court, however, directed the plaintiff to produce a succession certificate from the District Judge before receiving the amount. Having lost in the courts below, the Government filed a second appeal in the High Court and contended that the order dated December 31, 1955 was a valid one and the direction that the intervening period may be treated as leave was in accordance with law and hence the plaintiff could not claim the amount during this period. The High Court overruled the plea taken by the Government on this point. It was then contended before the High Court that the suit was barred by limitation under Article 102 of the Indian Limitation Act (Act IX of 1908), as it then stood. The central dispute between the parties in the High Court was as to what should be the starting point of limitation in this particular case. According to the appellant, the starting point of limitation would be the date when the employee was reinstated and restored to service and therefore he was entitled to the entire salary which became due. The stand taken by the Government was that the period of limitation was to be computed not from the date of his reinstatement but from the date when the sala