Back
Allahbad High Court
S.S.DHAVAN
Hari Raj Singh - Appellant
Versus
Sanchalak Panchayat Raj U.P. Govt. Lucknow - Respondent
Decided On : 05/15/1967
ARTICLE 226 - LIMITATION ACT - GOVERNMENT SERVANT - SALARY AND ALLOWANCES - REINSTATEMENT - JURISDICTION - FUNDAMENTAL RULES - GOVERNMENT SERVANT CONDUCT RULES - WRIT OF MANDAMUS - PROPERTY RIGHT - FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT - INTEREST - COSTS - The Government cannot take into consideration the Limitation Act while considering what salaries and allowances are payable to a reinstated Government servant. The Limitation Act applies only to suits, appeals, and applications filed in Courts but has no application outside these proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Panchayat Inspector, was removed from service in 1954. He challenged the order of removal in the High Court and obtained a quashing order in 1958. The Government reinstated him in service in 1959. The petitioner applied for payment of all the arrears of his salary. The Government, by its order dated 25th October 1960, directed that the petitioner should receive his salary and allowances only for the last three years as the payment of any emoluments to him for the remaining period of his absence from duty is barred by time. The petitioner challenged the said order by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Government's order rejecting the petitioner's claim for salary and allowances on the ground of limitation was invalid and illegal. The Court further held that the Government had no jurisdiction under Rule 54 of the Fundamental Rules to reject the petitioner's claim for salary and allowances on the ground of limitation. The Court also held that the petitioner's right to receive his salary and allowances for the six years is not only a contractual right but also a statutory right. The Court further held that the petitioner's right to receive his salary and allowances for the period between 1953 and 1956 is a property right and also a fundamental right which can be enforced by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Issues: 1. Whether the Government can take into consideration the Limitation Act while considering what salaries and allowances are payable to a reinstated Government servant? 2. Whether the Government had jurisdiction under Rule 54 of the Fundamental Rules to reject the petitioner's claim for salary and allowances on the ground of limitation? 3. Whether the petitioner's right to receive his salary and allowances for the six years is a contractual right and also a statutory right? 4. Whether the petitioner's right to receive his salary and allowances for the period between 1953 and 1956 is a property right and also a fundamental right which can be enforced by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Limitation Act applies only to suits, appeals, and applications filed in Courts but has no application outside these proceedings. 2. The Government had no jurisdiction under Rule 54 of the Fundamental Rules to reject the petitioner's claim for salary and allowances on the ground of limitation. 3. The petitioner's right to receive his salary and allowances for the six years is not only a contractual right but also a statutory right. 4. The petitioner's right to receive his salary and allowances for the period between 1953 and 1956 is a property right and also a fundamental right which can be enforced by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Final Decision: The Court quashed the Government's order rejecting the petitioner's claim for salary and allowances on the ground of limitation. The Court also directed the Government to pay the petitioner his salary and allowances for the entire period of his absence from duty, from 23rd May 1953 to April 30, 1959 together with such increments as he would have normally drawn had he not been removed from service, and dearness allowance at the rates admissible to him under the orders of Government issued from time to time. The Court also directed the Government to pay interest at the rate of six per cent per annum from October 25, 1960 till the date of tender of payment.
2. The petitioner was appointed to one of these posts by the Director of Panchayat. U.P., by his order dated July 16, 1949. In 1951 he got into trouble with the authorities and disciplinary action was taken against him, and he was charged with having committed serious offences. During the disciplinary proceedings he remained suspended. On January 13, 1952 he was reinstated but a number of punishments were imposed on him. His salary was reduced to the lowest scale of Rs. 120/- per month, his increment was stopped for one year, and it was directed that at the end of this, period the question whether he should receive any increment would be considered. An adverse remark was made against him in hip Character Roll. Before the year was out he again got into trouble and serious charges of misconduct were framed against him. He was suspended once again. As a result of the inquiry, he was removed from service by an order of the Joint Director, Panchayat Raj, dated the 12th May 1954. His appeal against this decision was dismissed by the Government on or about May 18, 1956 and then he filed a petition in this Court under Art.226 for the quashing of the order of dismissal and for directing the State to treat him as continuing in service and pay him the arrears of salary due to him upto date. This petition was heard by me and during its hearing the State conceded that the order removing the petitioner from service was illegal as it was passed by an authority which was subordinate to that by which he was appointed. Thereupon this Court quashed the order of removal on the around that there had been a violation of the provisions of Art.311(1) of the Constitution. The Court did not consider the relief with regard to the payment of arrears of salary because counsel for the State Government submitted that the Government might pass a fresh order for his removal or commence fresh proceedings against him.
In pursuance of the decision of this Court, the petitioner was reinstated in service on the 1st of May, 1959. On the 8th of June, 1959, he applied to the Director of Panchayat Raj for payment of all the arrears of his salary. No decision on the question of arrears of salary due to him was taken for some time. But the disciplinary proceedings which resulted in his removal were not revived and he continued in service till the 28th February 1960. On
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
