Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.68 seconds)Section 61 in The Bombay Reorganisation Act, 1960 [Entire Act]
Section 60 in The Bombay Reorganisation Act, 1960 [Entire Act]
Article 311 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 64 in The Bombay Reorganisation Act, 1960 [Entire Act]
The State Of Tripura vs The Province Of East Bengalunion Of ... on 20 December, 1950
"After referring to the aforesaid decision in The State of Tripura v. The Province of East Bengal 1951 S.C. 23, the Full Bench observed that the meaning of the term "actionable wrong" deducible from the aforesaid decision was an illegal or unauthorised act infringing a legal right of another affording him a ground for action in law The words used in Section 61 of the Bombay Reorganisation Act, 1960, are wide enough to cover a liability to continue to employ a person and to pay him his due remuneration in a case where an order of dismissal has been passed against such person and the order is found to be void and inoperative by reason of non-compliance with the provisions contained in Article 311(2) of the Constitution. In view of the settled interpretation of law it is clear that when the plaintiff holds the State liable in respect of any actionable wrong which is other than breach of contract and claims his legal right of remuneration which he would have earned if he was not prevented from performing his duty as a civil servant, the case would clearly fall under Section 61.
Article 115 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Devendra Pratap Narain Rai Sharma vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 3 November, 1961
As per the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court (Deveendra Pratap v. State of U.P.) , the effect of the declaration of the civil Court is that the deceased Government servant was wrongfully prevented from performing his services and he was thereby deprived of his legal remuneration which he would have earned if he was not so prevented. The Supreme Court in terms clarified in that decision that the reinstatement order in such a case would be superfluous as there was never any breach of contract. Therefore, the case is clearly one of actionable wrong other than the breach of contract, which gives right to a liability to pay remuneration during the period that the civil servant was wrongfully prevented from rendering services. Such remuneration may be one to pay wages and it arises because the civil servant holds a statutory status governed by statutory rules which entitles him to earn, this remuneration. In any event, the claim in respect of such a liability for remuneration which a civil servant would have earned but for the wrongful action of the State is not a tortious liability as contended by Mr. Vidyarthi but one arising from the fact that the person concerned was a civil servant who was wrongfully prevented from earning this remuneration due to him. Therefore, Section 61 would be clearly applicable to the facts of the case in view of the aforesaid settled position of law.
Shri Madhav Laxman Vaikunthe V vs The State Of Mysore on 12 April, 1961
3. The first question which arises in this appeal is as to whether the said claim of the plaintiffs for arrears of salary prior to 1-8-55 is time-barred by reason of Article 102 of the Act. Article 102 deals with suits for wages not otherwise expressly provided for by the Schedule. The limitation period is 3 years and time begins to run from the date "when the wages accrued due." After the decision of the Supreme Court in Madhav v. State of Mysore , it is well settled that Article 102 of the Act would be the relevant article applicable in such cases. In that case a question had arisen in connection with the order of reversion which was held to be illegal and in violation of the constitutional guarantee. As regards the claim for arrears of salary and dearness allowance the trial Court disallowed the claim on the ground that the claim was based on a tort.