Pyarelal Saxsena vs Union of India

Nigam, J.C.

Pyarelal Saxsena filed Civil Suit No. 1143 of 1949 against the Union of India claiming a declaration that he had been wrongfully dismissed from service and was, therefore, liable to be reinstated. He also claimed Rs. 1,180/- on account of damages for wrongful dismissal. The suit was contested and one of the issues was whether the notice under S. 80, Civil P.C. was not in accordance with law and was not duly served. The learned Additional Subordinate Judge held that the notice was not valid and hence the suit was not maintainable. He, therefore, dismissed the suit with costs. An appeal was taken to the District Judge and the learned District Judge agreed with the finding of the first Court and held that the notice was not in accordance with law. He, therefore, dismissed the appeal with costs. Now Pyarelal, plaintiff has come up in second appeal. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

In the notice the plaintiff''s learned counsel stated:

I, therefore, give you notice that unless my client is immediately reinstated, all his dues are paid to him from the date of the termination of his services and other suitable amends to the satisfaction of my client is made, my client will on the expiry of two months from the date of service of this notice file a suit against you for the recovery of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) only as damages for wrongful dismissal in the competent Court of Law at Ajmer and you shall be held liable for all cost incidental thereto, so please note. 3. In this second appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant has urged that the notice was for a claim of Rs. 1,000/- on account of damages for wrongful dismissal. The claim for damages was given up in the first appellate Court. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, however, is that the relief of damages involves the determination of the question of wrongful dismissal and therefore when the notice claims damages, a suit for mere declaration is maintainable. The learned counsel has referred to - Secretary of State vs. Nagorao Tanko DeshmukhAIR 1938 415 (Nagpur) . In that case no relief was specifically claimed but it could be ascertained by a reading of the notice and the plaintiff had stated that he would take legal steps to obtain the required redress of his grievance as he may be advised. The Government after the receipt of the notice had in the reply stated:

In these circumstances I cannot but inform you that we are awaiting the threatened action. 4. His Lordship held that the notice in this particular case was valid.

The plaintiff certainly does not say that he claims a declaration of his right or an injunction; but, as both the Courts below have held, there can be no doubt whatever as to the nature of the relief which he would claim in the civil action which he gave notice he would bring. There can also be no doubt whatever that the defendant-appellant knew perfectly well the nature of the suit that would be brought. 5. Reference has also been made to - Lady Dinbai Dinshaw Petit and Others Vs. The Dominion of India and Another, . But that was a case of ''cause of action'' and not of ''reliefs claimed''. In Second Appeal No. 46 of 1953 (Ajmer) (C), I have held that the plaintiff may be permitted to claim relief''s slightly different from those claimed in the notice if the reliefs claimed in the suit remain substantially the same as that claimed in the notice. The facts of the present case are, however, different. In this particular case, the relief claimed in the notice was one of damages and it has been authoritatively held that no suit for damages would lie and now the plaintiff has abandoned his claim for damages. In my opinion the claim, for damages and a claim of reinstatement and a declaration of title to reinstatement are two substantially different things and that it was not open to the plaintiff after giving notice for a claim of damages for wrongful dismissal tot claim the relief of reinstatement or a declaration to that effect.

No other point has been pressed before me.

I, therefore, see no force in this appeal and dismiss it with costs.