Anand Swarup Singh Vs. State of Punjab
K.S. Hegde, J. 1. This is a plaintiffs appeal. The plaintiff joined as Naib Tahsildar in Patiala State on June 14, 1930. He was removed from service on January 20, 1949. His representation against his removal was rejected. Thereafter on October 25, 1965, he filed a civil suit for recovery of arrears of pension, said to be due from August 25, 1959, till October 24, 1965. The trial Court decreed the claim as prayed for. 2. The State of Punjab went up in appeal against the decree of the trial Court. In the grounds of appeal it was specifically stated : it is prayed that the judgment and decree of the lower Court to the extent it awards the amount of pension for 6 years be set aside and it be held that the respondent is entitled to recover the said amount for 3 years. From this it is clear that in the appeal the State of Punjab merely disputed the plaintiffs right to claim arrears of pension for six years, but conceded his right to claim pension for three years immediately preceding the suit. But curiously enough at the time of the hearing of the appeal everyone appears to have overlooked the scope of the appeal. The High Court went into the question whether the suit brought by the plaintiff was maintainable. It came to the conclusion that the suit was not maintainable and it accordingly dismissed the suit in its entirety. This conclusion is wholly untenable in view of the scope of the appeal filed by the State of Punjab. It may further be noted that on October 14, 1966, the President of India revoked the order made on January 20, 1949, and restored the plaintiff to Service but by his order dated October 25, 1966, the President declared that the plaintiff must be deemed to have retired on September 28, 1955, when he attained the age of 55 years. In view of this order, which we are told was placed before the High court the High Court was not justified in holding that the plaintiffs suit was not maintainable as the plaintiff had not prayed for a declaration setting aside the order made on January 20, 1949. In this view, it is not necessary to consider the correctness of the High Courts conclusion that the suit as brought by the plaintiff is not maintainable. 3. Now coming to the question whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim arrears of 6 years pension, the question appears to be concluded by the decision of this Court in Shri Madhav Laxman Vaikunthe v. The State of Mysore, (1962) 1 S.C.R. 886, wherein this Court held that in the case of a claim for arrears of salary the period of limitation will be that laid down in Art. 102 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908. It has not been shown that the ratio of that decision is inapplicable to the present case.
1[ds]From this it is clear that in the appeal the State of Punjab merely disputed the plaintiffs right to claim arrears of pension for six years, but conceded his right to claim pension for three years immediately preceding the suit. But curiously enough at the time of the hearing of the appeal everyone appears to have overlooked the scope of the appeal. The High Court went into the question whether the suit brought by the plaintiff was maintainable. It came to the conclusion that the suit was not maintainable and it accordingly dismissed the suit in its entirety. This conclusion is wholly untenable in view of the scope of the appeal filed by the State of Punjab. It may further be noted that on October 14, 1966, the President of India revoked the order made on January 20, 1949, and restored the plaintiff to Service but by his order dated October 25, 1966, the President declared that the plaintiff must be deemed to have retired on September 28, 1955, when he attained the age of 55 years. In view of this order, which we are told was placed before the High court the High Court was not justified in holding that the plaintiffs suit was not maintainable as the plaintiff had not prayed for a declaration setting aside the order made on January 20, 1949. In this view, it is not necessary to consider the correctness of the High Courts conclusion that the suit as brought by the plaintiff is not maintainablethe question appears to be concluded by the decision of this Court in Shri Madhav Laxman Vaikunthe v. The State of Mysore, (1962) 1 S.C.R. 886, wherein this Court held that in the case of a claim for arrears of salary the period of limitation will be that laid down in Art. 102 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908. It has not been shown that the ratio of that decision is inapplicable to the present case.
### Instruction:
Evaluate the case proceeding to forecast the court's decision (1 for yes, 0 for no), and elucidate the reasoning behind this prediction with important textual evidence from the case.

### Input:
K.S. Hegde, J. 1. This is a plaintiffs appeal. The plaintiff joined as Naib Tahsildar in Patiala State on June 14, 1930. He was removed from service on January 20, 1949. His representation against his removal was rejected. Thereafter on October 25, 1965, he filed a civil suit for recovery of arrears of pension, said to be due from August 25, 1959, till October 24, 1965. The trial Court decreed the claim as prayed for. 2. The State of Punjab went up in appeal against the decree of the trial Court. In the grounds of appeal it was specifically stated : it is prayed that the judgment and decree of the lower Court to the extent it awards the amount of pension for 6 years be set aside and it be held that the respondent is entitled to recover the said amount for 3 years. From this it is clear that in the appeal the State of Punjab merely disputed the plaintiffs right to claim arrears of pension for six years, but conceded his right to claim pension for three years immediately preceding the suit. But curiously enough at the time of the hearing of the appeal everyone appears to have overlooked the scope of the appeal. The High Court went into the question whether the suit brought by the plaintiff was maintainable. It came to the conclusion that the suit was not maintainable and it accordingly dismissed the suit in its entirety. This conclusion is wholly untenable in view of the scope of the appeal filed by the State of Punjab. It may further be noted that on October 14, 1966, the President of India revoked the order made on January 20, 1949, and restored the plaintiff to Service but by his order dated October 25, 1966, the President declared that the plaintiff must be deemed to have retired on September 28, 1955, when he attained the age of 55 years. In view of this order, which we are told was placed before the High court the High Court was not justified in holding that the plaintiffs suit was not maintainable as the plaintiff had not prayed for a declaration setting aside the order made on January 20, 1949. In this view, it is not necessary to consider the correctness of the High Courts conclusion that the suit as brought by the plaintiff is not maintainable. 3. Now coming to the question whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim arrears of 6 years pension, the question appears to be concluded by the decision of this Court in Shri Madhav Laxman Vaikunthe v. The State of Mysore, (1962) 1 S.C.R. 886, wherein this Court held that in the case of a claim for arrears of salary the period of limitation will be that laid down in Art. 102 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908. It has not been shown that the ratio of that decision is inapplicable to the present case.

### Response:
1

### Explanation:
From this it is clear that in the appeal the State of Punjab merely disputed the plaintiffs right to claim arrears of pension for six years, but conceded his right to claim pension for three years immediately preceding the suit. But curiously enough at the time of the hearing of the appeal everyone appears to have overlooked the scope of the appeal. The High Court went into the question whether the suit brought by the plaintiff was maintainable. It came to the conclusion that the suit was not maintainable and it accordingly dismissed the suit in its entirety. This conclusion is wholly untenable in view of the scope of the appeal filed by the State of Punjab. It may further be noted that on October 14, 1966, the President of India revoked the order made on January 20, 1949, and restored the plaintiff to Service but by his order dated October 25, 1966, the President declared that the plaintiff must be deemed to have retired on September 28, 1955, when he attained the age of 55 years. In view of this order, which we are told was placed before the High court the High Court was not justified in holding that the plaintiffs suit was not maintainable as the plaintiff had not prayed for a declaration setting aside the order made on January 20, 1949. In this view, it is not necessary to consider the correctness of the High Courts conclusion that the suit as brought by the plaintiff is not maintainablethe question appears to be concluded by the decision of this Court in Shri Madhav Laxman Vaikunthe v. The State of Mysore, (1962) 1 S.C.R. 886, wherein this Court held that in the case of a claim for arrears of salary the period of limitation will be that laid down in Art. 102 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908. It has not been shown that the ratio of that decision is inapplicable to the present case.
