Continuing salary claim and transfer by operation of law upheld where service records supported teacher's employment and no termination was shown.

Contemporaneous records such as transfer orders, joining reports and arrears payments supported the teacher's claim of service, and the absence of a produced appointment letter or termination order did not displace that evidence. On the applicable statutory takeover of basic education, her service was treated as transferred by operation of law to the Basic Shiksha Parishad. The salary claim was not barred by limitation because no termination or dismissal order was shown, so salary accrued as a continuing monthly claim and gave rise to a continuing cause of action. The High Court's grant of salary for the preceding three years before superannuation on the revised pay scale was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the respondent was duly appointed and was in service as a teacher and whether her service stood transferred to the Basic Shiksha Parishad by operation of law; (ii) whether the claim for salary was barred by limitation.

Issue (i): whether the respondent was duly appointed and was in service as a teacher and whether her service stood transferred to the Basic Shiksha Parishad by operation of law.

Analysis: The available material, including transfer orders, joining reports and evidence of payment of arrears, supported the respondent's claim of service. The absence of a produced appointment letter or termination order did not dislodge the evidence of employment. Once basic education was taken over under the applicable statutory regime and the respondent's name was shown to be missing from the transferred list without explanation, her service was rightly treated as transferred by operation of law.

Conclusion: The respondent was held to be a duly appointed teacher whose service stood transferred to the Basic Shiksha Parishad, and the contrary view of the Tribunal was rejected.

Issue (ii): whether the claim for salary was barred by limitation.

Analysis: Since no order of termination or dismissal was established, the respondent was treated as continuing in service and salary accrued from month to month. The recurring nature of the claim gave rise to a continuing cause of action, so the bar of limitation did not defeat the claim.

Conclusion: The claim was held not to be barred by limitation.

Final Conclusion: The High Court's decision granting the respondent salary for the three preceding years before superannuation on the basis of the revised pay scale was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Where service is supported by contemporaneous records and no termination order is shown, the employee may be treated as continuing in service by operation of law, and a recurring salary claim then gives rise to a continuing cause of action not barred by limitation.

---