A public servant can recover the arrears of his salary by suit, as the rule that a civil servant holds office at the pleasure of the Crown and cannot claim damages for premature termination of their services, as applicable in England, was not fully adopted in S. 240 of the Government of India Act, 1935.

MUKERJI, J. :- This is an appeal by a plaintiff whose suit was dismissed by the trial Court on two grounds, namely -

(1) on the ground of limitation; and

(2) on the ground that the money which was in the nature of arrears of salary was not recoverable.

2. The facts, giving rise to this litigation briefly stated were these - the plaintiff, Dwarka Prasad, was appointed a Junior Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, on 15-10-1921. After serving for some years he got into trouble with the result that he was dismissed on 4-9-1939 by an order of the Registrar.

He preferred an appeal to the Governor, who, by his order of 3-5-1940 set aside the earlier order of dismissal of Dwarka Prasad, the plaintiff. This is what was said in the order namely -

"Babu Dwarka Prasad will now be treated as under suspension with effect from the date of his removal till such time as Government pass orders in this matter. During the period of his suspension he will draw subsistence allowance equal to 1/6th of his pay."

Subsequent to the aforesaid order other proceedings were taken, and the Governor finally made the order of dismissal of the plaintiff on 23-8-1941. The plaintiff made certain petitions to the Governor for a reconsideration of his case but these petitions proved abortive and his dismissal remained effective.

3. On 2-5-1944 the plaintiff gave notice to the Government under S. 80, Criminal P.C., for filing a suit against the Government for wrongful dismissal and also claiming therein such salaries as would be payable to him in respect of the wrongful dismissal. On 11-7-1944 a petition in forma pauperiswas filed by the plaintiff accompanied with the proposed plaint. On 16-12-1944 the Court permitted the plaintiff to sue in forma pauperisand his plaint was registered as such on that date.

4. In his plaint the plaintiff worded his reliefs in these words -

(a) A declaration be given to him that the order of dismissal passed by His Excellency the Governor of the United Provinces was not passed in due course of law and was wrongful, illegal and ultra viresand that notwithstanding the order the plaintiff is still in the service of the Crown as Inspector Co-operative Societies and entitled to enjoy all other rights and privileges as are incumbent on his office and the plaintiff be reinstated as Inspector Co-operative Societies with all the rights and privileges incumbent on his office.

(b) that arrears of pay as claimed along with damages as well as future pay at the rate of Rs. 220/- per month till the date of reinstatement be allowed to him; and

(c) that the plaintiff may be allowed reasonable amount of interest on the arrears of pay as well as costs of the suit.

The plaintiff also prayed that the Court may grant any other relief that it may think appropriate in the circumstances of the case.

5. The plaint is a long document and sets out in great detail the facts and the grounds on which the plaintiff claimed his reliefs. In a written statement filed on behalf of the United Provinces Government, as it then was, stand was mainly taken on two questions of law-

(1) that the suit was barred by limitation, having been filed more than one year beyond the date of dismissal; and

(2) that the plaintiff was entitled to claim no salary even if the dismissal was void because the plaintiff held his position at the pleasure of the Crown and he could claim no arrears of salary by a suit from the Crown.

The trial Court as we have already said, dismissed the plaintiffs suit holding against the plaintiff on both the points of law raised against him.

6. The trial Court framed four issues in all in the suit. The first issue was -

"Is the dismissal of the plaintiff illegal and void being in contravention of Ss. 240(2)(3), 241, 248, 266 and 276, Government of India Act, 1935 read with R. 4 made by U.P. Government, in exercise of the powers conferred by R. 54 of the Classification, Control and Appeal Rules ?"

The second issue was -

"Was the procedure adopted in the enquiry i