TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Petitioner entitled to salary arrears from 1953-1956. Limitation Act not applicable outside courts.</h1> <h3>Hari Raj Singh Versus Sanchalak Panchayat Raj, U.P.</h3> Hari Raj Singh Versus Sanchalak Panchayat Raj, U.P. - AIR 1968 All 246 Issues Involved:1. Whether the petitioner's claim for salary from 23rd May 1953 to 30th April 1956 was time-barred.2. Whether the Government could consider the Limitation Act while deciding the petitioner's salary and allowances.3. Whether the petitioner was entitled to arrears of salary and allowances for the period of his suspension.4. The validity of the orders passed by the Government of Uttar Pradesh and the Director of Panchayat Raj.5. The appropriate relief to be granted to the petitioner.Detailed Analysis:1. Time-Barred Claim:The main question was whether the Government's refusal to pay the petitioner's salary for the period between 1953 and 1956 on the ground that his claim was time-barred was valid. The court held that the Limitation Act applies only to suits, appeals, and applications filed in courts, not to proceedings outside the courts. The Government's reliance on the Limitation Act was due to a misunderstanding of its scope. The court concluded that the Government could not consider the Limitation Act while deciding the petitioner's salary and allowances.2. Consideration of the Limitation Act:The court emphasized that the Limitation Act is a procedural law that bars a suit for the enforcement of a right but does not extinguish the right itself. The concept of 'time-barred' cannot be extended to proceedings outside the law courts. The court found that the Government's decision to reject the petitioner's claim as time-barred was based on an irrelevant and extraneous consideration, rendering the decision illegal.3. Entitlement to Arrears of Salary:The petitioner argued that the court's decision quashing his removal automatically entitled him to reinstatement and arrears of salary. The court clarified that reinstatement does not automatically entitle a government servant to all arrears of pay and allowances. The competent authority must pass an order sanctioning the exact amount to be paid. The Government's decision to pay the petitioner only for the period between 1956 and 1959, while rejecting the claim for 1953 to 1956, was found to be without jurisdiction and invalid.4. Validity of Government Orders:The court quashed the orders dated October 25, 1960, and January 20, 1961, which rejected the petitioner's claim for salary for the period between 1953 and 1956 as time-barred. The court held that the Government could not take the law of limitation into consideration while deciding the petitioner's claim for arrears of salary.5. Appropriate Relief:The court directed the State Government to pay the petitioner his salary and allowances for the entire period of his absence from duty, from 23rd May 1953 to April 30, 1959, together with increments and dearness allowance. The court also awarded interest at the rate of six percent per annum from October 25, 1960, till the date of payment, and assessed the petitioner's costs at Rs. 400.Conclusion:The court concluded that the petitioner's claim for salary and allowances for the period between 1953 and 1956 was not time-barred, and the Government's decision based on the Limitation Act was invalid. The petitioner was entitled to arrears of salary and allowances for the entire period of his suspension, and the Government was directed to pay the petitioner with interest.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
