Back
1970 Supreme(Del) 100
High Court Of Delhi
UNION OF INDIA - Appellant
Versus
DINA NATH - Respondent
SECOND APPEAL 1 of 1970
Decided On : 04/28/1970
D.K.KAPUR, RAJENDER DUTT
An acknowledgement, for the purpose of limitation, must indicate not only the jural relationship between the parties but must also admit the said jural relationship.
Headnote:
LIMITATION ACT, 1963 - SECTION 18 - ACKNOWLEDGEMENT - REQUIREMENTS - ADMISSION OF JURIDICAL RELATIONSHIP - MERE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF CLAIM NOT SUFFICIENT.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, a former employee of the appellant, filed a suit for arrears of pay, claiming that the appellant had condoned a break in his service and that he was entitled to the difference in salary for the period during which his pay was restricted due to the break in service. The appellant disputed the claim on merits and also contended that the suit was barred by limitation.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the letter relied upon by the respondent as an acknowledgement to extend the period of limitation did not amount to an acknowledgement of the existence of a jural relationship from which the claim for arrears of pay could be justified. The court found that the letter merely acknowledged the receipt of the respondent's claim and stated that the same was under consideration, but it did not admit the existence of any liability to pay the arrears of pay.
Issues: Whether the letter relied upon by the respondent constituted an acknowledgement sufficient to extend the period of limitation under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that an acknowledgement, for the purpose of limitation, must indicate not only the jural relationship between the parties but must also admit the said jural relationship. In this case, the court found that the letter in question did not admit the existence of any jural relationship from which the respondent's claim for arrears of pay could be justified. The court further held that a mere acknowledgement of a claim, without admitting the existence of a jural relationship, is not sufficient to bring the claim out of the bar of limitation.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the lower appellate court, and restored the judgment of the trial court dismissing the suit as barred by limitation.
( 1 ) THIS second appeal by the Union of India is directed against the order dated August 28, 1969 of the Additional District Judge, Delhi, who held that the respondents suit for arrears of pay wag within time and accepting the respondents appeal I remanded the suit back to the trial court for decision on merits.
( 2 ) THE respondent was employed as Labour Supervisor on June 28, 1943 in the C. 0. D. , Delhi at Rs 3. 00 per day. He was reclassified as Leading Hand in the year 1945 in the scale of 97-4-121. In April, 1947 there was a general strike in which the respondent took part from April 12, 1947 to April 21, 1947. This period was treated by the Government as break in service, although the respondent otherwise continued to remain in service In 1954, the respondent was transferred to the Ammunition Depot, Gurgaon, and his salary was provisionally restricted to Rs. 101. 00 per month till the final determination of the question relating to the condonation in the aforesaid break in service. On January 18, 1958 the Government, by a general order, condoned the break in service where it did not exceed six days. As the respondents break exceeded six days he did not get any benefit as a result of this order, The matter, however, continued to be pressed by the employees,but before any final decision could be taken, the respondent became 55 years of age and was retired on June 23, 1958
( 3 ) ON January 8. 1960 the Government decided to condone break in service for period exceeding six days but not exceeding 90 days. The respondent claimed the benefit of this decision and made several approaches to the Government for the purpose of having his pay-refixed in accordance with the said decision and for the payment of arrears of difference in salary calculated in this way. He ultimately, filed the suit on August 27, 1903 for arrears of difference in pay which became payable to him under the aforesaid decision of the Government condoning the break in service. The respondent claimed such arrears from 1954 to 1958.
( 4 ) THE appellant, however, disputed the respondents claim on merits and stated that the suit was otherwise barred bytime. It was stated that no legal action was maintainable for the recovery of arrears of gratuity.
( 5 ) WITHOUT going into the merits of the case, the learned Sub-Judge dismissed the suit as barred by time The claim for gratuity was held to be not maintainable.
( 6 ) THE respondent in appeal before the Additional District Judge gave up the claim for gratuity The learned Additional District Judge, however, held the suit to be within time and accepted the appeal The Union of India has now come up in the second appeal against the said judgment of the learned Additional District Judge
( 7 ) THE only question canvassed at the Bar was whether the finding of the Additional District Judge, Delhi, to the effect that the letter exhibit P W. 2/4 extended the period of limitation under section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 was correct. The letter exhibit P W. 2/4 dated September 16. 1960 issued by the Officer, Commanding, Ammunition Depot, Gurgaon to the respondent reads as follows :
"subiect : Payment of legitimate dues on fixation of pay. Reference : Your application dated 12th September, 1960. Your service documents have been forwarded to 0i/c AOC Records for verification of date of your confirmation of LH (Fire ). Further action regarding the arrears of pay, if admissible, will be taken on receipt of the same. "the learned counsel for the repondent submitted that in order to understand the significance of the words used in the acknowledgement, the surrounding circumstances can be taken into consideration ; and the correspondence exchanged between the parties prior to the said letter exhibit D W. 2/4 should be read in order to properly appreciate the meaning of the said letter He relied on the case of Shapoor Fredoom Mazda v. Darga Prosad Chainaria, etc. , where it was held by the Supreme Court that oral ev
