Jaganmohan Reddy, J. - (1.)C.C.C.A. No. 39 of 1960 is filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh, hereinafter called the 1st appellant, and C. C. C. A. No. 59 of 1960 is filed by the State of Mysore, hereinafter referred to as the 2nd appellant, against the common judgment and decree passed by the Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in O. S. No. 168 of 1953 declaring the respondent herein to be still a Dist. Collector, and awarding a sum of Rs. 22,500/- I. G. against the 1st appellant in respect of the relief set out in clause (ii) of paragraph 36 of the plaint towards the difference in the pay of a District Collector and a Deputy Collector to which past the respondent was reverted by an order of the then Hyderabad Government as from 1-4-1954. The appeal of the 1st appellant is also directed against the decree for Rs. 2,646-8-0 (O. S.) equivalent to Rs. 2,262-8-0 (I. G.) in respect of the claim made in clause (v) of paragraph 36 of the plaint. The respondent has also filed a memorandum of cross-objections in respect of the allowances during the period of suspension which the trial Court had held to be barred by limitation as also for disallowance of interest on the sum awarded subsequent to the suit.
(2.)The facts leading to the filing of the suit by the respondent are as follows: The respondent was a member of the Hyderabad Civil Service of the erstwhile Hyderabad State, having joined it on 20-7-1933, He was subsequently promoted to the post of a Deputy Collector in which post he was confirmed on 15-9-1943. In due course, he was promoted as First Talukdar (District Collector) on 13-3-1944 on a substantive pro tempore basis as from 24-3-I94S, and thereafter he was transferred to the post of a Deputy Commissioner of Customs on 3-3-1947 on a salary of Rs. 1,200/- and an allowance of Rs. 150/-per mensem in which capacity he was working till after the Police Action in September, 1948. During this period, he had also appealed against the confirmation of one of his juniors viz., Moulvi Bahauddin Khan. H. C S., on which appeal, the Chief Civil Administrator, Mr. Bhakle, had passed orders by and under which the respondent was declared to be senior to Shri Bahauddin Khan notwithstanding the fact that Bahauddin Khan was confirmed. About an year after the Police Action, the Government of Hyderabad, placed the respondent under suspension as and from 16-10-1949 and subsequently framed 24 charges and served a charge-sheet on him on 8-11-1949 basing them on the report of one Joshi, who was re-employed as a Commissioner of Customs and who, according to the respondent, was inimically disposed towards him. During the period of inquiry, it may also be stated the respondent was granted subsistence allowance under the Hyderabad Civil Service Regulations firstly amounting to one-fourth of the monthly allowance which was subsequently raised to one half. The inquiry proceeded for about two years before the Board of Revenue, consisting of three members in it, both the respondent and the Government were represented by advocates. On the conclusion of the inquiry, a report was sent to the Government by the Board of Revenue on 21-7-1951 and the Government gave a notice to the respondent to show cause why he should not be made to retire on proportionate pension. After his showing cause, the Government, by its notification dated 15-3-1952, ordered that the respondent had retired from service with effect from 29-4-1952 on proportionate pension. Subsequently, however, by another notification dated 19-5-1952, the Government informed the plaintiff that he would get half of the salary during the period of suspension. Immediately thereafter, by another notification dated 31-5-1952, the order of retirement was cancelled. Along, with this notification, the Government issued a notice to the respondent on 30-5-1952 asking him to show cause why he should not be retired. The plaintiff submitted his representation on 31-7-1952 and, after about a year, he was served with a fresh charge on 13-4-1953 by which he was directed to show cause why be should not be removed from service on the basis of continued inefficiency. To this also, the respondent submitted an explanation on 7-5-1953. Thereupon, the Board of Revenue communicated to him an order dated 1-4-1954, reinstating him in service and at the same time reverting him as a Deputy Collector. After joining this post, the respondent asked the Government to furnish him the reasons for his being reverted, but he was informed by the Government in its letter dated 10-71954 that he was reverted to this substantive post on the ground of his being mediocre and on account of his inefficiency. Against the order of reversion, the respondent sent a representation to the Government on 22-7-1954 and as he did not get any reply, he appealed to the Rajpramukh on 9-10-1954. But that appeal was disposed of on 2-6-1955 by the remarks that the Government did not see any reason to alter the order already passed.
(3.)After the dismissal of his appeal, the respondent received another communication dated 18-9-1956 from the Board of Revenue informing him that he was allotted to Mysore State consequent upon the re-organisation of States. The respondent, by his application dated 20-9-1956, represented that, having regard to the fact that he belonged to Telangana and the suffering which he had undergone, he should be retained in this State; and if for any reason this request of his is not granted, he prayed to accord permission so as to enable him to retire on pension under G.A.D. Circular No. 35 dated 28-5-1956 and No. 94 dated 28-31956 which gave Government servants an option to retire till 30th September, 1956. In the meanwhile it appears that there was another Government servant, by name one Shri Ramachandra Asthana, who was prepared to go to Mysore. The respondent accordingly filed an application on 31-10-1956 for retaining him in the Andhra Pradesh State in the place of the person who (was) prepared to go to Mysore State and intimated that his previous application may be cancelled. No order seems to have been passed on this application as the persons allotted to the respective States had to take charge on 1-11-1956 which is the appointed day under the States Re-organization Act and since he continued to discharge his duties under the erstwhile Hyderabad Government, the Government of Andhra Pradesh directed him to hand over charge immediately and report himself for duty to the Liaison Officer appointed by the Mysore Government stationed at Hyderabad. Accordingly, the respondent was relieved on 3-12-1955 and he was said to have reported himself to the Liaison Officer of the Mysore State. But, according to him, no posting orders were given to him by the said Liaison Officer. For the period 1-11-1956 to 3-12-1956, the respondent claimed salary from the Andhra Pradesh Government which amount was ultimately paid by the Andhra Pradesh Government after the suit was instituted. At this stage, it may be pointed out that the respondent did not join duty and has been claiming that no posting orders were given to him while the Government has been taking the plea that the respondent did not ask for a posting order. The respondent, after waiting till August 1957, served suit notices under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code on the Andhra Pradesh Government and as wall as the Mysore Government for a declaration that he is still a Government servant as a Collector; for pay subsequent to his reversion and as well as pay prior to reversion during the period of suspension; for repayment of recoveries made on account of the alleged over payment; and for an injunction restraining the Government concerned from recovering any further amounts. After the suit notices were given, Writ Petition no. 705 of 1957 was filed by him in September 1957 on the ground that his allotment to Mysore State was bad and for a direction that he continued to be in the service of the Andhra Pradesh Government. After the said writ petition was filed, the respondent was made to retire by the, Mysore Government on 20-11-1957 with effect from 2-4-1957. After this order was passed, the suit out of which these appeals arise was filed on 3-12-1957 claiming the aforesaid reliefs which are identical with those specified in the notice annexed to the plaint.