Judgment :- 1. The revision petition is by the plaintiff, who has sued for his service having been wrongly terminated by the erstwhile Travancore State. In the plaint he has averred that he had been dismissed from service on March 24,1943, that on appeal a direction was given about his being provided for in some Government-sponsored concern, and that he had petitioned to give effect to the undertaking, but on August 11, 1955, he was informed that the case would not be reopened. On the aforesaid averments, he has claimed the following reliefs: - (a) The court to declare that the orders dispensing with his services and compulsory retirement are void, wrong and are no longer in force; (b) declare that the plaintiff stands absolved of the charges leading to the impugned order and is entitled to reinstatement to the same position he would have occupied but for the impugned order; (c) in the alternative to (b) that he is entitled to be provided in some Government-sponsored place with equal pay and allowance; (d) either (b) or (c) relief be given in the alternative; (e) the entire pay and allowance, less any pension received till date of plaint, be decreed; and (f) future emoluments by way of compensation from the date of suit be allowed at Rs. 300/- p. m. and allowance at Rs. 60/- from date of plaint till reinstatement and other general incidental reliefs. The court-fee paid on relief [a] is Rs. 10, and none been paid on relief [c] as it is an alternative relief to relief [b]. Relief [e] had been valued at Rs. 2.000/-, and the court-fee paid is Rs. 125/-. These are not in dispute, the controversy before me being for the court fee on relief [f], on which the petitioner has paid nothing on the ground that it related to future emoluments and allowances from the date of the suit, for which nothing is payable. The lower court has called upon the petitioner to pay court fee under S.3(2) of the Travancore-Cochin Court Fees Act, No. II of 1125, which reads as follows: "3. The lower court has called upon the petitioner to pay court fee under S.3(2) of the Travancore-Cochin Court Fees Act, No. II of 1125, which reads as follows: "3. The amount of fee payable under this Act in suits, original or appeal, shall be computed as follows: - xxx xxx xxx xxx (2) In suits to establish the right to maintenance, annuity or other sums payable periodically - according to the value of the subject-matter and such value shall be deemed to be ten times the amount claimed to be payable for one year. xxx xxx xxx xxx The petitioner's learned advocate, in support of the argument of there being no provision to pay fee on damages pendente lite, has relied on Girija Kuer v. Shiva Prasad. AIR. 1935 Patna 160. There the learned judges have held that the value of the suit is its value at the date of the institution of the suit, and not what its value would be on some subsequent date. They had further held that future mesne profits cannot be taken into account for the purpose of payment of court fee, and applying the above analogy it was clear that no court fee would be payable in respect of the damages pendente lite. They had also held that such damages cannot be taken into account for determining the value of the suit. The learned Government Pleader has relied on Kalidas Narsing v. Union of India (AIR. 1959 Bombay 436) where Chagla, C. J., has held the claim for pension from the State to be covered by "other sums payable periodically" in sub-section (2) of S.7 of the Indian Court Fees Act, No. VII of 1870, which is similar to S.3 (2) of the Travancore-Cochin Court Fees Act. The learned Government Pleader has urged that salary being payable periodically, the lower court has correctly levied the court fee. It cannot, however, be denied that High Courts have held the words "other sums payable periodically" to mean payments ejusdem generis with maintenance and annuities. Indeed, Chagla, C.J., in the case relied on behalf of the respondent, has observed that all sums payable periodically are not within the ambit of the sub-section. In any case, periodical payments dependent on service bear no likeness to payments already earned, and maintenance as well as annuities fall in the latter class. Indeed, Chagla, C.J., in the case relied on behalf of the respondent, has observed that all sums payable periodically are not within the ambit of the sub-section. In any case, periodical payments dependent on service bear no likeness to payments already earned, and maintenance as well as annuities fall in the latter class. In Narsing's case the pension had already been earned, and, therefore, was classed as something similar to maintenance, nothing being immediately required of the claimant in order to justify his getting the amount. It follows that, should some service be required to justify the amount being claimed, the payment would not be reasonably called maintenance nor annuity, and would not be covered by S.1 (2). It also follows that as relief (f) in the present case rests not on withholding of some earned periodical payments, but on the petitioner not being allowed to earn salary by performing his duties, the lower Court has erred in levying court fee under S.3 [2] of the Act. That apart, the relief is for damages pendente lite, and under Girija Kuer's case AIR. 1935 Patna 160 such claim need not be taken into account I respectfully agree with the decision, and consequently this petition must be allowed. This case has come before me under S.115, CPC., and, therefore, any pronouncement on the merits of the relief is not called for, though I am doubtful of such, suit being maintainable, there being no devolution of any liability on the Kerala State for the wrongful dismissal of an employee by the erstwhile Travancore State: However, the legal issue before me is a limited one, which is, how far the levy of court fee in the case on relief [f] of the plaint is justified and in the exercise of jurisdiction; and I am convinced that it is incorrect. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed, and the judgment of the lower court is vacated only in so far as levy of court fee on relief [f] is concerned. As the revision petition is allowed, no order is necessary on C.M.P. 2596/60, because no court fee is payable. Dismissed.