https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169916 Liability for a service-related claim against successor States under the States Reorganisation Act fell on Madhya Pradesh as the principal successor State because the actionable wrong was not confined wholly to Maharashtra; the residuary rule therefore applied. The salary claim was not barred by Order 2 Rule 2 CPC or limitation because the earlier suit did not omit a known, existing claim for arrears, and the later suit arose from reinstatement and the subsequent dismissal. Salary entitlement was treated as reviving only on reinstatement and on setting aside the operative dismissal order, so the claim accrued at that point. The decree for the plaintiff was sustained with costs. en-us Wed, 05 Jan 1977 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 12 May 2015 16:06:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169916 Liability for a service-related claim against successor States under the States Reorganisation Act fell on Madhya Pradesh as the principal successor State because the actionable wrong was not confined wholly to Maharashtra; the residuary rule therefore applied. The salary claim was not barred by Order 2 Rule 2 CPC or limitation because the earlier suit did not omit a known, existing claim for arrears, and the later suit arose from reinstatement and the subsequent dismissal. Salary entitlement was treated as reviving only on reinstatement and on setting aside the operative dismissal order, so the claim accrued at that point. The decree for the plaintiff was sustained with costs. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 05 Jan 1977 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169916