Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (1.37 seconds)The Limitation Act, 1963
Government of India Act, 1935
The High Commissioner For India And The ... vs I.M. Lall on 18 March, 1948
The question then arises whether he is entitled to any
relief in respect of his claim for arrears of salary and
dearness allowance. He has claimed Rs. 10,777 odd as
arrears of pay, Rs. 951 odd as arrears of dearness
allowance, as also Rs. 688 odd as arrears of daily allowance
plus interest of Rs. 471 odd, thus aggregating to the sum of
Rs. 12,886 odd. This claim is spread over the period
August, 1946, to November, 1953, that is to say, until the
date of his retirement from Government service, plus future
interest also. On this part of the case the learned Trial
Judge, relying upon the case of the High Commissioner for
India and Pakistan v. I. M. Lall (1) held that a government
servant has no right to recover arrears of pay by an action
in a Civil Court.
Section 80 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Article 311 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The State Of Bihar vs Abdul Majid on 11 February, 1954
He got over the decision of this Court in
the State of Bihar v. Abdul Majid (2) on the ground that
that case has made a distinction between a claim based on a
contract and that on a tort. In the instant case, he came
to the conclusion that as the plaintiff had claimed the
difference between the pay and allowance actually drawn and
those to which he would have been entitled but for the
wrongful orders, the claim was based on tort and, therefore,
the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief.
Province Of Punjab vs Pandit Tara Chand on 11 April, 1947
Government, the claim would be in time from June 2, 1951.
Hence the Trial Court, while giving the declaration that the
Order impugned was void, dismissed, the rest of the claim
with a direction that the plaintiff was to pay 3/4ths of the
costs of the suit to the defendant. The High Court
dismissed the suit in its entirety after allowing the cross-
objections of the State. The appellant contended that his
suit for arrears of salary would not be governed by the
three years rule laid down in Art. 102 of the Limitation Act
and that the decision of the Federal Court in Tarachand's
case (1) was not correct. The sole ground on which this
contention was based was that "salary" was not included
within the term "wages". In our opinion, no good reasons
have been adduced before us for not following the aforesaid
decision of the Federal Court. In the result, the appeal is
allowed in part, that is to say, the declaration granted by
the Trial Court that the Order of the Government impugned in
this case is void, is restored, in disagreement with the
decision of the High Court. The claim as regards arrears of
salary and allowance is allowed in part only from the 2nd of
June, 1951, until the date of the plaintiff's retirement
from Government service. There will be no decree for
interest before the date of the suit, but the decretal sum
shall bear interest at 6% per annum from the date of the
suit until realisation. The plaintiff-appellant will be
entitled to three-fourths of his costs throughout, in view
of the fact that his entire claim is not being allowed.
1