State of Punjab and Others vs Sukhdev Singh

S.C. Agrawal, J.—Sukhdev Singh, the respondent herein, was employed as a constable in the Police Department in the former State of Punjab. By order dated August 1, 1960, he was dismissed from service on the ground of misconduct after holding an inquiry into the charges leveled against him. He filed a civil suit wherein he sought the relief of declaration that the order dismissing him from service was null and void. The said suit was dismissed by the trial Court by judgment dated January 29, 1968. On appeal, the suit was decreed by the District Judge by judgment dated November 11, 1970. The District Judge also directed that the respondent is entitled to payment of salary for the period of three years and two months prior to the date of filing of the suit. The second appeal filed by the appellants against the said decree of the District Judge was dismissed by the High Court by judgment dated July 21, 1980. Thereafter the respondent was reinstated in service on June 2, 1981. He claimed full salary for the period from August 1, 1960 till the date of reinstatement. The said representation of the respondent was not accepted by the authorities and thereafter the respondent filed Civil Writ Petition No. 5079 of 1981 in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana which has given rise to this appeal. The said writ petition was dismissed by the learned single Judge of the High Court by judgment dated September 15, 1989. The respondent filed an appeal (LPA No. 20004 of 1989) which has been allowed by the High Court by the impugned judgment dated January 20, 1994. The learned Judges have held that though the respondent had not claimed the salary prospectively from the date of the suit but, in law, since the order terminating his services has been set aside, the legal effect of the said decision is that he is entitled to salary prospectively from the date of the suit. The respondent has been held entitled to the salary from the date of the suit, i.e., October 10, 1966 till June 2, 1981 when he was reinstated.

We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

We do not consider it necessary to go into the question whether the respondent is entitled to claim the salary on the basis that the order of dismissal has been declared to be invalid although he failed to claim the said relief in the earlier suit. Here we find that the order of dismissal was declared to be invalid by the appellate Court by judgment dated November 11, 1970. The cause of action for making a claim for salary, therefore, in any event, arose on November 11, 1970. The writ petition was, however, filed only on November 1, 1981. If the respondent had filed a suit on November 1, 1981, he could not have claimed salary with effect from October 19, 1966. He could have only claimed the salary for the period covering three years and two months prior to the date of the filing of such suit. The respondent cannot claim more by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The relief granted to the respondent must, therefore, be confined to the salary for the period of three years and two months prior to the date of filing of the writ petition on November 1, 1981.

The appeal is partly allowed to this extent and it is held that the respondent would be entitled to the salary for the period of three years and two months prior to the date of filing of the writ petition on November 1, 1981. The impugned judgment of the High Court will stand modified accordingly. No orders as to costs.