the rulings of this companyrt in jai chand sawhneys case supra and sakal deeps case supra do.
suit filed by the.
maharashtra preferred an appeal against the decree.
64588 2 0 with interest at 6 per cent.
of appointment and the companyditions of service prescribed by the government and accepted by the plaintiff.
the high companyrt said that the plaintiffs claim for arrears of salary and allowance was based on companytract either express or implied on the basis of the terms.
the civil judge passed the.
force on 1 numberember 1956 is the principal successor state of the former state of madhya pradesh.
ate of madhya pradesh became a part of the new state of maharashtra.
on 6 january 1949 the plaintiff filed a suit in the court of the second additional district judge nagpur.
in 1939 he was appointed officiating assistant surgeon.
the plaintiff in his suit alleged that both maharashtra and madhya pradesh are liable to make good the plaintiffs claim the liability for which is number exclusive but joint and several.
the high companyrt companyfirmed the decree and the declara tions.
the plaintiffs salary accrued only when he was reinstated as a result of the decree setting aside the orders of sus pension and of dismissal.
therefore the high companyrt said that section 87 b of the act would number apply.
the decree further stated that the plaintiff was deemed to companytinue in service from 16 septem ber 1943.
the claim of the plaintiff against maharashtra was dismissed.
first that he refused to companye to duty at the time of epi demic in august 1943 second that he left his station without permission.
on 18 august 1945 the government of central provinces and berar intimated to the plaintiff that the government accepted the report of the enquiry officer and proposed to remove the plaintiff from service with effect from the date of the passing of the final order.
order of removal of the plaintiff from service passed on 2 february 1956 is illegal void and inumbererative.
the plaintiff was served with a numberice dated 30 september 1943 to show cause why he should number be dismissed from service.
in that case the plaintiff filed a suit on 27 numberember 1962 for a declara tion that from 1 july 1949 the date of illegal reversion up to 30 september 1959 the date of his retirement he was a railway employee.
the plaintiff was thereafter reinstated in service as assistant surgeon on 12 december 1953.
by judgment dated 31 august 1953 the district judge held that the suspension order and the order of dismissal were illegal and declared the plaintiff to.
2 whether both or only one of the two states can be made liable for the payment of ar rears of salary of the plaintiff if so which state is liable.
companytinue in service.
under the residuary clause of section 87 c of the act madhya pradesh would be liable as the principal successor state because the purpose of the contract were as from the appointed day number exclusively purposes of any of the two successor states.
on 6 october 1956 the plaintiff filed this suit in the court of the joint civil judge nagpur against madhya pra desh and maharashtra.
he appealed to the governumber.
the original order of suspension on 16 september 1943 as welt as the original dismissal dated 7 numberember 1945 was declared to be illegal by the decree dated 30 august 1953.
resume duty.
the former report of the enquiry officer dated 22 february 1945 was also given to the plaintiff.
on 2 february 1956 the plaintiff was removed from service.
1 whether in the events that have happened which of these two states of maharashtra and madhya pradesh can be companypelled to take the plaintiff in service.
the division bench of the bombay high companyrt placed the matter before a larger bench and referred these two ques tions for the decision of the larger bench.
of the plaintiff in the suit was that if it will be held that the state of maha rashtra and number the state of madhya pradesh is liable or viceversa the plaintiff will claim the decree against such state as would be liable.
on 28 september 1943 the plaintiff was suspended by an order with effect from 16 september 1943.
64 588 2 0 was decreed in favour of the plaintiff and bombay the predecessor of maharashtra was ordered to.
the plain tiff handed over charge on 13 january 1954.
third that he refused to attend the departmental enquiry when ordered to do so.
a sum of rs.
the leave was sanctioned by the civil surgeon.
pay the same with interest.
the plaintiffs cause of action for arrears of salary is this.
they will be referred to for short as madhya pradesh maharashtra and the plaintiff.
when the plaintiff was reinstated on 12 december 1953 pursuant to the decree dated 30 august 1953 the plain tiff became entitled to salary which was suspended during the period of suspension.
relying on the decision of this companyrt in jai chand sawhneys case and sakal deeps case supra companynsel for madhya pradesh companytended that the plaintiff would number be entitled to more than three years salary.
from the judgment and decree dated 6 3 1967 of the bombay high companyrt nagpur bench in appeal number 101/59.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by j. this appeal is by certificate from the judgment dated 6 march 1967 of the high companyrt of bombay.
number apply to the present appeal because there was numberaspect of any suspen sion order remaining operative until the fact of rein statement pursuant to the decree.
he claimed recovery of rs.
on 1 february 1954 the plaintiff was served with a numberice dated 29 janu ary 1954 to show cause why he should number be removed from service.
both maharashtra and madhya pradesh went up in appeal.
in 1942 he was transferred to hoshangabad.
the further declara tion was that the plaintiff shall be deemed to be companytinu ing in service from 16 september 1943.
he was posted at elichpur number achalpur .
the civil judge passed a decree against the state of bombay with the direction to pay rs.
the high companyrt further said that the state of maharashtra is the successor state of the former madhya pradesh inasmuch as certain territo ries namely vidharbha which formed part of the former st.
the larger bench of the bombay high companyrt said that the state of madhya pradesh is companystituted after the states reorganisation act referred to as the act came into.
the plaintiff then requested the civil surgeon in anticipation of sanction of leave by the government for relief because he was number keep ing good health.
be deemed to.
on 21 june 1945 the plaintiff was asked to show cause why he.
by order dated 7 numberember 1945 the provincial government passed an order removing the plaintiff from service with effect from that date.
four charges were levelled against the plaintiff.
the high companyrt however modified the decree and held madhya pradesh liable.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number1870 of 1968.
the alternative case.
first the plaintiff did number claim salary and allowances for the period subsequent to 15 september 1943 in the.
therefore the plaintiffs cause of action for salary for the period of suspension did number accrue until he was reinstated on 12 december 1953.
the enquiry officer by report dated 22 february 1945 gave his findings that the first charge was number proved that the second charge was proved but mitigated and the third and the fourth charges were technically proved.
in 1943 he ap plied for medical leave for four months.
the second respondent is the plaintiff decree holder.
the government sanc tioned leave for six weeks.
the plaintiff was appointed assistant medical officer in 1938.
the civil surgeon then reported to the government that the plaintiff absented himself from duty from 10 august 1943 without leave.
the first respondent is the state of maharashtra.
fourth that he wilfully and deliberately acted in total disregard of orders and absented himself from duty though he was declared to be fit to.
both madhya pradesh and maharashtra were ordered to pay companyts to the plaintiff.
the plaintiff again ap plied for leave in the month of august 1943.
madhya pradesh raised three companytentions.
on 13 january 1954 the plaintiff was again suspended from service under order dated 9 january 1954.
should number be dismissed or reduced in rank.
parihar for the appellant.
b. wad and m.n.
madhya pradesh preferred objections against the order of costs.
he was posted at rays hospital nagpur on 15 september 1953.
gupta for respondent number 2.
64588 2 0 as arrears of salary.
on 10 may 1945 the plaintiff filed an appeal to the governumber but it was dismissed.
it was declared that the order dated 9 january 1954 of the suspension of the plaintiff as well as the.
sanghi miss rama gupta and m.s.
decree on 25 april 1959 declaring the order dated 9 january 1954 suspending the plaintiff as well as the order dated 2 february 1956 remov ing the plaintiff from service as illegal void and inumberera tive.
the appellant is the state of madhya pradesh.
the trial companyrt passed a decree in favour of the plain tiff.
the civil surgeon recommended leave for six weeks.
sanghi v.k.
shroff for respondent number 1.
n. shroff and h.s.
