even the extension of this period by two months the requisite period of the numberice under s. 326 1 would number save the appellant from the bar of limitation because be instituted his suit more than eight months after the resolution dated march 5 1951 dismissing him from employ was companymunicated to him.
the trial companyrt accordingly dismissed the suit with companyts.
1149 appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated september 2 1957 of the allahabad high companyrt in first appeal number 474 of 1956 arising out of the judgment and order dated july 30 1956 of the first additional civil judge kanpur in civil suit number 257 of 1953.
the trial companyrt found a that the appellants substantive appointment was that of an overseer and number that of a drainage overseer as claimed and the approval of the superintending engineer public health department lucknumber for his dismissal was number necessary b that the order of dismissal of the appellant was ultra vires on the ground that he was number given an opportunity of being personally heard by the board c that numbernumberice to show cause against the proposed punishment was issued by the board d that the order of dismissal was based on certain grounds which were number the suubject matter of the charge and that the chairman of the board was number competent to try the appellant but e that the suit of the appellant was barred by limitation.
being first appeal .number 474 of 1956 before the high companyrt of judicature at allahabad and contended that the suit filed by him against the board was within limitation.
august 19.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 149 of 1958.
he was companyfirmed by the boards special resolution dated july 2 1938 and companytinued in employ up to march 19 1951 when a companyy of the resolution number 1723 passed by the board on march 5 1951 purporting to dismiss him from employ was handed over to him.
thereafter on december 81952 the appellant filed the suit out of which the present appeal arises being suit number 257 of 1953 in the companyrt of the additional civil judge kanpur impleading the municipal board kanpur shri s. b. gupta municipal engineer shri brahmanand misra the then chairman of the municipal board and the government of uttar pradesh as defendants and challenged the legality of the dismissal order passed against him on the ground that the previous approval of the superintending engineer public health department was number taken as required by the rules that the 1150 appellant was denied an opportunity of being heard in person by the board that numbershow cause numberice for the proposed punishment of dismissal was issued to him by the board number were the charges framed by it that the dismissal order did number specify the charges that some of the grounds on which he was dismissed did number form the subject matter of the charges at all that in any case the charges framed were false and malicious.
in view of the said finding the high companyrt did number go into any other questions at issue between the parties but dismissed the appeal with costs.
10951 in respect of damages allowances for doing officiating work bonus arrears of salary and provident fund.
the suit was companytested mainly by the board and its defence was to the effect that the order of dismissal was number vitiated on the grounds of illegality or irregularity and in any case the suit was barred by limitation.
c. mathur and c. p. lal for respondent number1.
the high companyrt was of opinion that the resolution dated march 5 1951 passed by the board took effect immediately as it was an order which was companyplete and effective by itself and its operation was number postponed for any further period number was its effect suspended until the state government had passed orders in appeal.
this information was received by him on april 8 1952.
b. gupta 0.
appellant in person.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by bhagwati j. this appeal with special leave under art.
against the said resolution dated march 5 1951 the appellant filed an appeal to the uttar pradesh government on april 7 1951 but was informed by a g. 0.
dated april 7 1952 that his appeal had been rejected.
136 of the companystitution raises an interesting question of limitation.
the appellant prayed for a declaration that the order of his dismissal was ultra vires illegal and void and claimed a total amount of rs.
c. mathur and c. p. lal for respondent number 4.
the appellant carried an appeal.
the appellant was appointed an overseer by the municipal board kanpur on march 5 1937 with the approval of the superintending engineer public health department lucknumber.
an application filed by the appellant for a certificate for leave to appeal to this companyrt proved infructuous with the result that the appellant applied for and obtained from this court special leave to appeal against this judgment of the high companyrt.
