A decree passed by a court without jurisdiction is a nullity, and entitlement to benefits of private employees cannot equate to those of government workers as per specific institutional regulations.

CAV JUDGMENT

This appeal is preferred by the defendants under Section 100 of CPC, challenging the judgment and decree dated 11.03.2011 passed by the Principal District Judge, Belgaum, (for short ‘First Appellate Court’) in RA No.246/2010, modifying the judgment and decree dated 17.03.2010 in OS No.334/2005 on the file of Principal Civil Judge, Senior Division, Belgaum, (for short ‘Trial Court’) decreeing the suit of the plaintiff in part.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court.

3. Facts of the case in nutshell are that, it is the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court that the plaintiff is an employee of the defendant-educational institution, having been appointed as a Lecturer in Anatomy department of defendant No.2-College run by the defendant No.1-Society. It is the case of the plaintiff that, the plaintiff has joined his duties on 13.02.1971 on par with the Government Servant. He attained superannuation on 30.10.2002. It is further stated in the plaint that during the course of his service in the defendant No.2- College, the salary was paid as per the Government Servant and also he was entitled for 15 days casual leave and one month earned leave every year, so also medical leave etc., which is permissible to the State Government employees also. It is also stated in the plaint that the State Government have been periodically enhanced the dearness allowance to its employees however, same was denied to the plaintiff by the defendant-Institution. It is also contended in the plaint that plaintiff had earned leave to his credit and same was surrender at the time of his retirement however, the said benefit of earned leave encashment was denied to the plaintiff by the defendant-Institution. It is also stated in the plaint that the plaintiff has been denied benefit of HRA and CCA on par with the State Government Employees. The plaintiff made a claim for arrears of aforementioned benefits and same was rejected by the defendant-Institution at the time of retirement of the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff has preferred OS No.334/2005 against the defendant-Institution for recovery of money as the plaintiff is entitled for difference of dearness allowance, house rent allowance, earned leave and city compensatory allowance on par with the Government employees.

4. After service of summons, the defendant –Institution entered appearance and filed detailed written statement admits that the plaintiff was working in the defendant No.2-College. However, denied the averment made by the plaintiff that the plaintiff was getting salary as per Government pay-scales which have been given to the Government employees holding civil posts. It is the specific case of the defendants that the plaintiff is not entitled for difference of dearness allowance, house rent allowance, earned leave and city compensatory allowance on par with the Government employees. It is also stated in the written statement that the plaintiff was working in a private unaided institution under the management of defendant No.1-Society. The defendant No.1-Society has its own rules and regulations regarding service conditions of its employees and therefore, the same cannot be treated on par with the employees of the State Government and accordingly, it is stated in the written statement that the plaintiff is bound by the service conditions of the defendant No1-Society. It is also contended by the defendants that the suit is not maintainable and that apart suit is barred by law of limitation. Hence, the defendants sought for dismissal of the suit.

5. The Trial Court, based on pleadings on record, has formulated issues for its con