Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the Government could refuse payment of arrears of salary to a reinstated Government servant on the ground that the claim for part of the period was time-barred, and whether the impugned orders withholding salary on that basis were valid.
Analysis: The limitation law governs suits, appeals and applications in courts and does not extend to the exercise of statutory power by the Government when determining pay and allowances payable on reinstatement. A claim being time-barred in a civil court only bars the remedy; it does not extinguish the underlying right to salary. The Government also could not rely on Rule 54 of the U.P. Fundamental Rules to import limitation as a ground of refusal, because that rule only authorises consideration of pay and allowances on reinstatement and does not permit rejection on an extraneous ground. Since the petitioner had been unlawfully deprived of service and later reinstated, his entitlement to salary for the relevant period was a statutory and enforceable right.
Conclusion: The refusal to pay arrears on the ground of limitation was invalid and without jurisdiction, and the petitioner was entitled to payment of his salary and allowances for the entire period of absence, with increments, dearness allowance and interest.