Supreme Court limits arrears to 3 years, urges equitable relief despite limitation period.

The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, modifying the High Court's decree to limit the arrears of salary to the period within three years of the suit filing. The Court expressed regret over the unjust treatment of the appellant and urged the Union of India to consider equitable relief despite the legal bar due to the limitation period. Each party was directed to bear its own costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the appellant's reversion from the post of Office Superintendent.
2. Validity of the administrative order keeping the post of Office Superintendent in abeyance.
3. Applicability of Article 102 vs. Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1908.
4. Entitlement to arrears of salary, pension, and gratuity.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Appellant's Reversion:
The appellant was reverted from the post of Office Superintendent to Assistant Office Superintendent without holding any enquiry as required by the Disciplinary and Appeal Rules of the Railway. The High Court held that the order of reversion was penal and violated the procedural safeguards under Section 240(3) of the Government of India Act, making it void and "non est." Consequently, the appellant was legally entitled to hold the post of Office Superintendent and receive the corresponding salary until retirement.

2. Validity of the Administrative Order Keeping the Post in Abeyance:
The Trial Court held that the administrative order keeping the post of Office Superintendent in abeyance could not be questioned in a civil suit. However, the High Court found that the order was not bona fide and was a device to circumvent the difficulties arising from the reversion order. The High Court ruled that the alleged order of abeyance resulted in definite prejudice and loss to the appellant, making the suit legally maintainable.

3. Applicability of Article 102 vs. Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1908:
The Supreme Court addressed whether Article 102 or Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1908, applied to the case. The Court noted that previous decisions, including those in Shri Madhav Laxman Vaikunthe v. The State of Mysore and Jai Chand Sawhney v. Union of India, had established that Article 102 applied to claims for arrears of salary. The Court held that the Legislature's inaction to amend the Limitation Act despite these decisions indicated acceptance of this interpretation. Therefore, the appellant's suit for arrears of salary was barred by time under Article 102.

4. Entitlement to Arrears of Salary, Pension, and Gratuity:
The High Court decreed that the appellant, upon superannuation, was entitled to gratuity and pension as per the service rules, based on his retirement as Office Superintendent. The Supreme Court modified this decree, holding that only the amount falling within three years of the suit filing could be decreed, as per Article 102 of the Limitation Act, 1908. The Court directed that the arrears of pension and gratuity be calculated based on the salary scale applicable to the post of Office Superintendent.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, modifying the High Court's decree to limit the arrears of salary to the period within three years of the suit filing. The Court expressed regret over the unjust treatment of the appellant and urged the Union of India to consider equitable relief despite the legal bar due to the limitation period. Each party was directed to bear its own costs.

---