Ram Bharosey Lal Girls Inter College and Others vs Smt. Asha Sharma

K.M. Dayal, J.—The present appeal has been filed by the Defendant. The Plaintiff Respondent was a teacher in the Defendants school. Her services were terminated with effect from 3-3-1967. She filed an appeal to the Deputy Director of Education, Allahabad on 11-6-1968. Subsequently she instituted a suit on 3-7-1971 for recovery of the arrears of pay and increments due from 3-3-1967. The suit has been decreed by both the courts below.

The learned Counsel for the Appellant contended before me that the salary prior to three years from the date of the suit i. e. 3-7-1968 was time barred and the suit could not have been decreed for that. I am unable to agree with him. According to learned Counsel Article 7 of the New Limitation Act provides that the suit should have been filed within three years from the date when the wages accrued due. The limitation for filing the suit could not stop and continued to run and consequently the suit was beyond time. In the present case the situation is very different. The order of termination was passed on 3-3-1967. That order was not void and had to be set aside. It could not be ignored as such. Consequently no wages accrued to the Plaintiff till that order was set aside. As the order was set aside on 11-6-1968 and the Plaintiff was ordered to be reinstated, only then the cause of action to claim the salary arose. Under circumstances the Plaintiff had no right to claim any salary before the order of termination was set aside. There is yet another aspect of the case. The order of reinstatement was passed in appeal against the order of termination. Consequently the order of termination stood merged with the appellate order. Consequently the cause of action for recovering any amount would arise only under the appellate order and as the order of termination merged with the same, the suit could be filed within three years of the appellate order.

In this view of the matter there is no force in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. Under the circumstances the parties are directed to bear their own costs.