TMI Blog1973 (11) TMI 90X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ithin- 3 days, the use of certain first class passes issued to him. On 14-5-1949, he submitted his explanation and justified the use of these passes by quoting specific rules and similar instances. On 29-6-1949, the General Manager reverted the appellant from the Post of office Superintendent to that of the Assistant Office Superintendent with effect from 1-7-1949 without holding any enquiry at all as required by the Disciplinary and Appeal Rules of the Railway. The appellant's case is that, despite his demotion, he continued to perform the duties of the Office Superintendent presumably because he was efficient. On 27-7-1949, the appellant filed an appeal to the General Manager with the result that, on 29-11-1950, the Deputy General Manager had to withdraw the charges with the remarks: ,,since the appellant had used the passes under a genuine and reasonable belief, no stigma was attached . Thereupon, the appellant applied to the General Manager for formal reinstatement in the post of Office Superintendent and payment of arrears of his salary. Curiously, the General Manager, while awarding an honorarium of ₹ 40/- per month for the additional work of Office Superintendent d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sequently and would not give him any claim to the post. It was admitted that the plaintiff was appointed to officiate as Assistant Office Superintendent from 21-1-1949, but, it was alleged that, during the period of 18 days for which he held this. post upto 7-2-1949, and, even after that, the plaintiff had illegally utilised certain passes obtained under his signatures. A Selection Board, which met on 12-2-1949, for selection to the post of Office Superintendent, did not find the plaintiff to be the most suitable candidate. Hence, the plaintiff was reverted to the post of Assistant Office Superintendent from 14-2-1949. The plaintiff was again promoted to officiate as Office Superintendent with effect from 11-5-1949, but he was again reverted to his substantive post with effect from 1-7-1949 as a result of the charge sheet against him. The Railway administration had decided to appoint a second Selection Board after canceling the appointment of the first one. The second Selection. Board, which met on 11-11-1949, placed the appellant only second in order of merit so that the appellant had to continue as Assistant Office Superintendent. Hence, no question of his promotion as Office Sup ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n accordance with the declaratory decree passed by this Court in his favour . As regards the enquiry subsequently held with regard to the plaintiff's grievance, the Trial Court held that it could not take the place of fullfledged enquiry to which the appellant was entitled under section 240 cl. 3 of the Govt. of India Act and the procedural safeguards in a disciplinary action. It, therefore, held that the order of demotion passed against the appellant on 29-6-1949 was illegal. The High Court had, on the plaintiff's appeal, after considering the evidence, held : Therefore, the order of reversion, which had been passed really as a penal measure, cannot be held to be valid. The inevitable consequence of this finding would be that plaintiff was and remained legally entitled to hold the post of office Superintendent and as such to receive the salary etc. payable for that post until he retired. In this view of the matter, the relief for declaration, in the circumstances of the case, was redundant and not an essential prerequisite to his claim for recovery of salary etc. attached to that post, provided, of course, the claim was not barred under article 102 of the Limita ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , contained in Articles 102 and 120 of the Limitation Act of 1908, in identical terms without any modification. The Legislature must be presumed to be cognizant of the view of, this Court that a claim of the nature before us, for arrears of salary, falls within the purview of Article 102 of the Limitation Act of 1908. If Parliament, which is deemed to be aware of the declaration of law by this Court, did not alter the law, it must be deemed to have accepted the interpretation of this Court even though the correctness of it may be open to doubt. If doubts had arisen, it was for the Legislature to clear these doubts. When the Legislature has not done so, despite the repeal of the Limitation Act of 1908, and the enactment of the Limitation Act of 1963 after the decisions of this Court, embodying a possible questionable view, we think it is expedient and proper to over-rule the submission made on behalf of the appellant that the correctness of the view adopted by this Court in its decisions on the question so far should be reexamined by a larger Bench. This Court, in Shri Madhav Laxman Vaikunthe V. The State of Mysore ([1962] 1 S.C.R. p. 886 at 894.), following the case of the Punja ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unsel for the North Eastern Railway that as the appellant was entitled, on the finding of the High Court to hold the post of an Office Superintendent, he could draw a salary in the scale from ₹ 450 to ₹ 575 with effect from 1-7-1959. Before parting with the case we may observe that on the findings of the High Court about the correctness of which we have no doubt, the appellant was not treated justly. He was even denied promotion due to an order which was not a bonafide one inasmuch as its object was to deprive the appellant of the rights he would have otherwise enjoyed. It is regrettable that a subordinate Govt. servant should be treated in this manner by his superior officers. We hope that, although the claim of the appellant has been found to be barred by limitation, the Union of India will consider the equities of the case and see its way to giving such relief to the appellant as we are precluded under the law from granting to him due to the operation of the law of limitation. The result is that we modify the decree passed by the High Court to the extent that we hold that the amount which falls due to be paid to the appellant within three years of the filing of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
