The right to sue for wrongful dismissal accrues on the date of dismissal, and subsequent appeals or remedies do not extend the limitation period.

Sia Saran Sinha, J.

1. This second appeal needs determination of a short point namely, that of limitation in the following circumstances.

2. The appellant in second appeal is the plaintiff. He has come to this Court against the judgment of affirmance passed by the lower appellate Court. The plaintiff-appellant was appointed as a temporary clerk in the Saharsa Collectorate on 1-12-1951. There were certain charges against him concerning his official duties. This led to the drawing up of a departmental proceeding against him. Sri V/s. V. Nathan, the District Magistrate, Saharsa, the appointing authority of the appellant, by his order dated 27-7-1961 discharged him from his service The Bihar and Orissa subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1935 (hereinafter referred to as the 1935 Rules) made provision for appeal. Taking advantage of this provision, the plaintiff appellant challenged the order of his discharge before the Commissioner, Bhagalpur Division. The Commissioner, Bhagalpur Division, however, dismissed the appeal by his order dated 7-9-1961, Even the order of the Commissioner of Bhagalpur Divsion was challenged by the Plaintiff-appellant before the Member. Board of Revenue; but this appeal too met the same fate, as it was dismissed by the Member, Board of Revenue on 24-3-1964. Rule 12 of the 1935 Rules empowered the State Government and the Heads of Department to call for departmental proceedings and pass appropriate orders thereon, as envisaged therein. This provision, as it appears, tempted the appellant to file a memorial before the State Government. He did so, but this memorial too was rejected by the State Government on 5-8-1965, which, as alleged, is said to have been communicated to the plaintiff-appellant after a considerable delay on 19-12-1965. After a considerable delay on 7-8-1968 the appellant instituted the instant suit for a declaration that the order of his discharge from service passed by the District Magistrate, Saharsa, on 27-7-1961 and the subsequent orders passed in appeal as also the entire proceedings ending in his discharge from service were void, illegal, inoperative and without jurisdiction and the plaintiff-appellant was entitled to continue in service as before with arrears of pay and other benefits allowable to him under the rules.

3. The Chief Secretary, the Member, Board of Revenue, Commissioner, Collector, S. D. O. as also the State of Bihar were impleaded as defendants. They contested the suit by filing a common written statement refusing the claim of the plaintiff-appellant on grounds amongst others, that of limitation.

4. Both the trial Court as also the lower appellate Court on a consideration of the evidence adduced and the circumstances flowing therefrom held that the order of discharge passed against the plaintiff-appellant was void and illegal. The plaintiff-appellant was, however, non-suited and his suit was dismissed by both the two Courts below on the ground of limitation. Consequently, the only point that was pressed in this second appeal by the learned Counsel for the appellant was that of limitation.

5. Learned Counsel for both the parties were at one before this Court that the appropriate Article applicable to the instant case would be Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (Act 36 of 1963) (hereinafter referred to as the Limitation Act). This is a residuary Article and it provides that any suit for which no period of limitation is provided elsewhere in this Schedule may be instituted within three years from the date when the right to sue accrues. According to the learned Counsel for the respondents, the right to sue accrued to the plaintiff-appellant on 27-7-1961 when he was discharged from his service by the District Magistrate, Saharsa. In support of his contention learned Counsel for the respondents relied on a decision of the Supreme Court, reported in Sita Ram Gael V/s. The Municipal Board, Kanpur and Ors., AIR 1958 SC 1936. The contention of Mr. T