Limitation for a suit for a declaration that the order of dismissal passed on a public servant is wrongful and for recovery of arrears of salary etc. due to him, runs from the date of dismissal.

NARASIMHAM, C. J.

( 1 ) THIS is a plaintiffs appeal against the judgment of the Subordinate Judge of berhampur dismissing nis suit tor arrears of salary against the Pariakimedi municipality on the sole ground that the suit was barred by limitation.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff was an accountant in the Pariaki-medi Municipality. He was suspended on 5-1-1951 ana dismissed from service on 1-4-51. He tiled an appeal to Government against that order of dismissal, but that appeal was dismissed on 1-3-56 (see Ext. H ). In the meantime sometime in the year 1955 he fiied a petition uncier Article 226 of the Constitution in the High Court (see Ext. 1) O. J. C. 286/55 which was disposed of by a Bench of this Court on 11-7-1957 (reported in air 1957 Orissa 222 snyam Sundar Misra v. State of Orissa ). The Bench held that the order of dismissal passed by the Municipality was in contravention of the Rules regarding the conditions or service of Municipal servants and hence set it aside. I hereafter there was some correspondence and negotiation Between the appellant plaintiff and the Municipality for payment of arrear salary and other emoluments due to Sim till the date of his superannuation namely 7-7-54. ine Municipality by its letter, Ext. 6 dated 18-6-60 informed the appellant that a net amount of Rs. 2499. 37 Np. was payable to. him in full satisfaction of all his claims against the municipality and he was asked to accept the said sum within 10 days from the receipt of notice. instead or accepting this offer the appellant filed the present suit under appeal on 11-/-60 claiming arrears of salary and other emoluments from the date of his suspension namely 7-1-51 till the date of his superannuation, namely Y-/-M, together with interest etc. amounting in an to RS. 6995. 50 Np.

( 3 ) THE Municipality's main defence was one or limitation which was accepted by the lower court.

( 4 ) TWO points were pressed by Mr. Ramdas on behalf of the appellants :--i) Limitation would run against the appellant any from the date of the judgment in 0. J. C. No. 28and/1955, viz. from 11-7-57 setting aside thel order of dismissal and as the suit was brought within three years from that date it was within time. ii) In any case, the offer made by the Municipality in its letter Ext. 6 dated 18-6-60 agreeing to pay Rs. 2499. 37 np. in full satisfaction of the appellant's claim would furnish a fresh starting point for limitation under section 25 (3) of the Contract Act. in my opinion, neither or these contentions would prevail.

( 5 ) WHEN the appellant was dismissed by the Municipality on 1-4-51 Were accrued to him the right to bring a suit for a declaration that the dismissal was unlawful and for other consequential reliefs such as pay and otner emoluments due to him. Hence ordinarily limitation would run from the date of dismissal and it would expire within three years from that date. It is now well settled that in a suit for a declaration Wat the order of dismissal passed on a public servant is wrongful and for recovery or arrears of salary etc. due to him, the correct Article to be applied is article 102 of the Limitation Act (see Punjab Province v. Tara Chand, AIR 1947 FC 23 which nas been followed in Madhav Laxman Vaikunthe) v. State of Mysore, AIR 1962 SC 8. 5a. It is true that if the effect of filing an appeal was to suspend the operation of the order of dismissal either by virtue of any special provision in the Orissa municipal Act or in consequence of the passing of a stay order by the appellate authority, limitation may be saved until the appeal is disposed of as pointed out in sita Ram v-Municipal Beard, Kanpur, AIR 1958 SC 1036. But here our attention has not been drawn to any provision in the Orissa Municipal Act which says that as soon as an appeal is filed by the Municipal servant the order of dismissal is held in abeyance. The plaintiff also did not state that the appellate authority stayed the operation of the order of dismissal. Similarly though the writ