1977 (1) TMI 152 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the suspension and dismissal orders.
2. Liability for payment of arrears of salary.
3. Applicability of Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
4. Applicability of the Limitation Act.
5. Determination of the successor state liable under the States Reorganisation Act, 1956.

Summary:

Legality of the Suspension and Dismissal Orders:
The trial court declared the suspension order dated 9 January 1954 and the dismissal order dated 2 February 1956 as illegal, void, and inoperative. The plaintiff was deemed to be continuing in service from 16 September 1943. The High Court confirmed this decree and the declarations.

Liability for Payment of Arrears of Salary:
The High Court held Madhya Pradesh liable for the plaintiff's claim under section 88(c) of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956. The High Court reasoned that the cause of action did not arise wholly within the territories of Maharashtra, thus making Madhya Pradesh the principal successor state liable for the claim.

Applicability of Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure:
Madhya Pradesh contended that the plaintiff was barred from claiming salary and allowances for the period of 16 September 1943 to 31 August 1953 in the second suit filed on 6 October 1956 due to Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Supreme Court rejected this contention, stating that the plaintiff could not have claimed arrears of salary in the 1949 suit due to the prevailing legal position established by the Judicial Committee in Lall's case, which was later overruled by the Supreme Court in Abdul Majid's case.

Applicability of the Limitation Act:
Madhya Pradesh argued that the plaintiff's claim for salary and allowances prior to 6 October 1953 would be barred by Article 102 of the Limitation Act, 1908. The Supreme Court held that the plaintiff's cause of action for salary accrued only upon his reinstatement on 12 December 1953, following the decree dated 30 August 1953, and thus the suit filed on 6 October 1956 was within the limitation period.

Determination of the Successor State Liable:
The High Court determined that Madhya Pradesh was the principal successor state liable for the plaintiff's claim under section 88(c) of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, noting that the cause of action did not arise wholly within the territories of Maharashtra, and thus the liability fell on Madhya Pradesh as the principal successor state.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's decision that Madhya Pradesh is liable for the plaintiff's claim. The plaintiff's suit was not barred by Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure or the Limitation Act. The plaintiff's claim for arrears of salary accrued upon his reinstatement, and the liability for the claim was correctly placed on Madhya Pradesh under section 88(c) of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956. Costs were awarded to the plaintiff respondent, to be paid by the State of Madhya Pradesh.