1954 (4) TMI 60 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the suit.
2. Date of enrolment and entitlement to pay.
3. Legality of discharge from service.
4. Claims for compensation and damages.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Suit:
The defendant argued that the suit was not maintainable, citing the rule of English Law that a servant of the Crown cannot maintain a suit against the Crown. This was countered by referring to the Supreme Court decision in 'State of Bihar v. Abdul Majid,' which settled that a civil servant in India can maintain a suit for recovery of arrears of pay. The court ruled that the objection raised by the Union of India must be overruled, confirming the suit's maintainability.

2. Date of Enrolment and Entitlement to Pay:
The principal issue was the date of the plaintiff's enrolment. The court found that the plaintiff was enrolled on 19-3-1942, not 13-3-1942. Despite this, the plaintiff was paid at a civil rate of Rs. 150 per month until November 1943. The court noted that under Section 10 of the Indian Army Act, a person who has drawn pay and been borne on the rolls for six months is deemed to have been duly enrolled. The court concluded that the plaintiff should be entitled to the civil pay of Rs. 150 per month for the period of his service until his discharge.

3. Legality of Discharge from Service:
The plaintiff argued that he was discharged before the completion of his term. The court found that the enrolment paper indicated he was to remain in service during the war and a certain period thereafter "if required." The court held that the discharge was within the military authorities' rights and was not illegal. Therefore, the plaintiff was deemed to have been rightly discharged on 4-11-1945.

4. Claims for Compensation and Damages:
The plaintiff's various claims for compensation and damages were largely dismissed due to a lack of evidence or being too remote and far-fetched. Specific claims for ration allowance, night duty allowance, and travelling allowance were not substantiated. The court did recognize the plaintiff's entitlement to the difference in pay for the period from 1-12-1943 to 3-11-1945, amounting to Rs. 12278, with interest at six percent per annum from the date of discharge until payment.

Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed in part. The plaintiff was declared entitled to a basic pay of Rs. 150 per month for the period of his service, with the difference in pay for the specified period to be paid with interest. The court directed that the court-fees, which would have been paid by the plaintiff if not permitted to sue as a pauper, should be recovered from the Union of India by the State of West Bengal. The parties were directed to bear their respective costs, excluding the costs of court-fees.