Judgment HEGDE,, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a plaintiffs appeal by certificate. It directed against the decision of the High court of Andhra Pradesh in C. C. C. A. No. 39 and 59 of 1960 by that judgment the High court substantially modified the decree of the trial court. ( 2 ) THE plaintiff was a member of the erstwhile Hyderabad Civil Service. He joined service on 20/07/1933. He was subsequently promoted as Deputy Collector and confirmed in that post on 16/09/1943. On 24/03/1946, he was declared substantive Collector. On 3/03/1947, he was transferred as Deputy Commissioner of Customs. On 16/10/1949, he was placed under suspension on the basis of some "report made by his superior and thereafter he was served with a charge-sheet on 8/11/1949. During the period of his suspension he was granted subsistence allowance according to rules. On receiving the enquiry report from the Board of Revenue, the government called upon the plaintiff to show cause why he should not be made to retire on proportionate pension. He duly submitted his explanation. After considering the same, the government by its notification dated 15/03/1952, retired him from service with effect from 29/04/1952 on proportionate pension. Subsequently, however, the government by its notification dated 31/05/1952, cancelled the order of retirement but at about the same time it served him with a new show cause notice as to why be should not be retired. The plaintiff submitted his explanation to the said notice. He was again served with a fresh charge-sheet on 3/04/1953 by which he was directed to show cause why he should not be removed from service on the basis of his continued inefficiency. To this also, the plaintiff submitted his explanation. Thereupon on 1/04/1955, the Board of Revenue communicated to him an order reinstating him in service but at the time he was reverted as a Deputy Collector. Alter joining this post the plaintiff asked the government to furnish him the reasons for reversion. He was informed by the government by its letter dated 10/07/1954, that he was reverted to his substantive post on the ground of his being mediocre and inefficient. Against this order of reversion the plaintiff made a representation to the government on 22/07/1954. Thereafter he appealed to the Rajpramukh on October 9,1954 but the appeal was rejected on 2/06/1956 ( 3 ) MEANWHILE the States Reorganisation Act was passed by the Parliament. Against this order of reversion the plaintiff made a representation to the government on 22/07/1954. Thereafter he appealed to the Rajpramukh on October 9,1954 but the appeal was rejected on 2/06/1956 ( 3 ) MEANWHILE the States Reorganisation Act was passed by the Parliament. On 18/09/1956 the plaintiff was informed that he had been allotted to the Mysore State consequent upon the reorganisation of the States. The plaintiff by his application of 20/09/1956, represented to the Hyderabad government that having regard to the fact that he belonged to Telengana and bearings in mind the sufferings which he had to undergo, he should be retained in Andhra Pradesh and if for any reason that request of his is not to be granted, he prayed that permission may be according to him to retire on proportionate pension under G. A. D. Circular No. 36 dated 28/05/1956, read with Circular No. 94 dated 28/08/1956, which gave Government servants option to retire before 30/09/1956. In the meantime it appear one Sri Ramchandra Asthana who was in the same cadre as the plaintiff expressed his willingness to go to Mysore State. On learning about that fact, the plaintiff represented to Andhra Pradesh Government on 31/10/1956, for retaining him in Andhra Pradesh State in the place of the person who was prepared to go to Mysore State. Therein he further stated that his previous application may be cancelled. The States were reorganized on 1/11/1956. Hence the Andhra Pradesh Government was not in a position to pass any order on the application made by the plaintiff on 31/10/1956. That application was forwarded to the Mysore Government. The plaintiff instead of handing over charge on. 1/11/1956 and reporting himself for duty to the Mysore Liaison Officer continued to hold on to his office in the Andhra Pradesh State. Sometime in November the Andhra Pradesh Government directed him to relinquish his charge and report himself for duty to the Mysore Liaison Officer. Though the plaintiff was relieved of the charge that he was holding on 3/12/1956, he does not appear to have reported himself for duty to the Mysore Liaison Officer. Thereafter the plaintiff moved the Andhra Pradesh High court under Art. 226 of the Constitution to quash the order allotting him to Mysore State. That petition was dismissed. Though the plaintiff was relieved of the charge that he was holding on 3/12/1956, he does not appear to have reported himself for duty to the Mysore Liaison Officer. Thereafter the plaintiff moved the Andhra Pradesh High court under Art. 226 of the Constitution to quash the order allotting him to Mysore State. That petition was dismissed. On 2/04/1957, the Mysore government accepted the offer made by the plaintiff in his letter of 20/09/1956 to retire from service and ordered his retirement on proportionate pension. On 3/12/1957, the plaintiff brought the suit from which this appeal arises after giving notices to the governments of Andhra Pradesh and Mysore under s. 80, Civil Procedure Code. ( 4 ) IN the suit the plaintiff contended that he must be deemed to continue in service as the order made by the Mysore government on 2/04/1957 was an invalid order for the reasons mentioned in the plaint. He also claimed, the balance of salary due to him during the period he was placed under suspension as well as during the period when he had to work as a Deputy Collector in pursuance of the order of 1/04/1954 which order according to him was illegal and inoperative. ( 5 ) THE trial court substantially decreed the plaintiffs claim. It quashed the order of 1/04/1954 reverting him as a Deputy Collector as being illegal and void. It declared that be continues to be a Collector. It held that the order suspending the plaintiff was invalid and inoperative from its very inception. It directed the Andhra Pradesh government to pay him Rs. 22,500. 00 e. g. being the amount due to him towards his salary as Collector including the increment from the date of his reversion to the date he was relieved of his office i. e. from 1/04/1954 till 3/12/1956. The Andhra Pradesh government was further directed to pay to the plaintiff Rs. 2,262/8 in respect of the reliefs claimed in cl. (5) of para 36 of the plaint. The rest of the claim made by the plaintiff was rejected as being barred by time. As against the trial courts decree, both the Andhra pradesh government and the Mysore government went up in appeal to the High court of Andhra Pradesh. The plaintiff filed cross-objections re-agitating his claim for the amounts disallowed by the trial court. The High court dismissed the cross-objections filed by the plaintiff. As against the trial courts decree, both the Andhra pradesh government and the Mysore government went up in appeal to the High court of Andhra Pradesh. The plaintiff filed cross-objections re-agitating his claim for the amounts disallowed by the trial court. The High court dismissed the cross-objections filed by the plaintiff. It held that be was properly retired by the Mysore government. Agreeing with the trial court, it held that his suspension and reversion were illegal and therefore he was entitled to the salary which he would have got as Collector till the date of his retirement subject to the law of limitation. It also agreed with the trial court that Art. 102 of the Limitation Act, 1908 governs the claim made by the plaintiff. Aggrieved by this decision, the plaintiff has brought this appeal. ( 6 ) THE two questions that fall for decision in this appeal are (1) whether the order of the Mysore government retiring the plaintiff from service is a valid order and (2) when did plaintiffs cause of action arise for suing the governments, for arrears of salary due to him. ( 7 ) MR. Pillai, learned counsel for the plaintiff challenged the order of the Mysore government retiring the plaintiff from service on various grounds He urged that order not only contravened Art. 311 of the Constitution, it also unhinged the principles of natural justice as the government did not give the plaintiff any opportunity to show cause against his retirement. It was further urged on his behalf that the order in question is not based on any subsisting rule or regulation. Hence it should be considered as an arbitrary order. In order to decide those questions, it is not necessary to consider the various legal contentions urged on behalf of the plaintiff regarding the validity of the impugned order as, in our opinion, that order was based on the request made by the plaintiff himself. As -we shall presently see, the plaintiff was determined not to take up service under the Mysore government. He had made clear to the Andhra Pradesh government that if he cannot be retained in the Andhra Pradesh State, be should be permitted to retire. He failed to report himself for duty under the Mysore government even after he was relieved by the Andhra Pradesh government. He had made clear to the Andhra Pradesh government that if he cannot be retained in the Andhra Pradesh State, be should be permitted to retire. He failed to report himself for duty under the Mysore government even after he was relieved by the Andhra Pradesh government. Therefore we think that the order of the Mysore government retiring him on the basis of the request made by him cannot be assailed. ( 8 ) IT was urged on behalf of the appellant that though at on stage, he showed his unwillingness to serve under the Mysore government and consequently represented to the Andhra Pradesh government that he should be permitted to retire, at a later stage he withdraw that prayer and therefore it was not competent for the Mysore government to retire him from service. We do not think that this contention is well founded. As seen earlier, the plaintiff was allotted to the Mysore State under the provisions of the States Reorganization Act. Therefore he became a servant under the Mysore government as from 1/11/1956. We have earlier Been that he in vain tried to get the order allotting him to the Mysore State quashed by moving the High court of Andhra Pradesh under Art. 226 of the Constitution. Therefore it must be taken that as from 1/11/1956, he was in law a servant of the Mysore government. We have earlier referred to his letter. wherein he sought permission to retire from service. That letter reads : "to The secretary to, Government, Revenue Department, Pyderabab-Dn. Subject : Application of Qutubuddin H. C. S. for reconsidering his allocation to Mysore and in the alternative to grant proportionate pension under General Administration Department Circular No. 94 dated August, 1955. Sir, I have been intimated through the Board of Revenue Memo No. 4988/c-ISR/56-57 dated l8th September, 1956, that I have been allocated to Mysore State, I have to make the following representation in this connection. Apart from the fact that by birth I belong to Telengana, and all my relatives and interests are in this area, that I know Telugu and not Kanarese, and that during more than 23 years of my service, I have served for more than 20 years in Telengana, I am in a peculiar position due to the tribulations which I suffered in recent years. I was kept under suspension for four and half years in connection with charges which eventually were found baseless. After the completion of the inquiry instead of being reinstated as Collector I was reverted to the post of a Deputy Collector after having been in the grade of Collector as S. P. T. for about 10 years. In view of this, it would be very embarrassing for me to work in the District under junior officers. I would therefore request government to kindly reconsider my allocation to Mysore and allow me to continue in some suitable post in Hyderabad which would enable me to complete my tenure of service with some peace of mind in the closing stages of my service. If, however, my request cannot be granted, I may please be permitted to retire on proportionate pension and gratuity under GAD Circular No. 36 dated 28/5/1956 arid 94 dated 28/9/1956, with six months privilege leave preparatory to retirement. Yours faithfully, Hyderabad-Dn. Sd/- Mohd. Qutubbuddin, H. C. S. Assistant Nazim Atiyat 29/9/1956. ( 9 ) THE next letter that he wrote in that connection was in 31/10/1956. That letter reads as follows : "to The Revenue Minister, government of Hyderabad, Hyderabad-Dn. Through Nazim Sahab Atiyat. Sir, Please refer to my application dated 28/09/1956 where I had expressed my difficulties in going; to Mysore which is the State of my allotment arid had requested that I be allowed to remain in Andhra Pradesh. Alternatively I had stated that I would have no alternative but to avail of CAD Circular No. 36 dated, 28-5-1956. I have received no reply to it so far. In the meantime an officer belonging to the same cadre as mine and allotted to Andhra Pradesh is willing to go to Mysore. I would, therefore, request you please to sanction this arrangement and treat my previous application as cancelled. This may kindly be treated as urgent. (Sd.) QUTUBBUDDIN, Assistant Nazim Atiyat 31/10/1956. " ( 10 ) IN view of this letter, it is contended on behalf of the plaintiff that we must hold that his earlier proposal to retire stood withdrawn. We are unable to spell out such an inference from the letter of 31/10/1956. That letter, in our opinion, merely states that the plaintiffs offer to retire must be treated as withdrawn if the alternative suggestion made by him is accepted. We are unable to spell out such an inference from the letter of 31/10/1956. That letter, in our opinion, merely states that the plaintiffs offer to retire must be treated as withdrawn if the alternative suggestion made by him is accepted. That is clear from the conduct of the plaintiff. As seen earlier, he did not report himself for duty to the Mysore Liaison Officer on 1/11 /1956. Even when he was relieved by the Andhra Pradesh government on 3/12/1956, he did not report himself for duty to the Mysore Liaison Officer. A feelable attempt was made in this court to show that he did report himself for duty to the Mysore Liaison Officer on 6/12/1956 but he was not given any posting. This contention appears to be incorrect. The representation given by the plaintiff to the Mysore Liaison Officer on 6/12/1956 is not before us but the plaintiffs contention that he Bad reported himself for duty to the I Mysore Liaison Officer is proved to be false by the statement made by him in his statement of case filed in this court. In paragraph II of his statement he stated thus: "he (plaintiff) however did not report for duty to the Liaison Officer, instead of his letter dated 6/12/1956 he apprised the said officer of the circumstances under which he was unable to join the services of the Mysore State, and sent a copy of this letter to the Chief secretary, Andhra Pradesh, praying for the passing of final orders on his representation mentioned above. " ( 11 ) THAT was also the stand taken by the plaintiff when be gave evidence in the trial court. This is what he stated there : "after my allotment to the Mysore State I had submitted a petition for my retirement which I have deposed in my statement earlier. I had submitted my applications for the cancellation of my allotment to Mysore State to the Hyderabad government. Till today I have not joined the service of the Mysore State. nor I am working in Hyderabad as the question of my allocation is pending. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I was never properly allotted to the Mysore State but I was informed only in the month of September, 1956 that I was allotted to Mysore State. nor I am working in Hyderabad as the question of my allocation is pending. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I was never properly allotted to the Mysore State but I was informed only in the month of September, 1956 that I was allotted to Mysore State. During the time I was working as Assistant Nazim of Atiyat. I was relieved from the service of the Andhra Pradesh after the appointed day on 3/12/1956. Even after the appointed date I continued to work in Andhra Pradesh because action by the government on my application for retention in the State was pending. This application was pending before the former government of Hyderabad. I did not join Mysore State Service. I still want to serve in the government of Andhra Pradesh. I am not willing to join the service of the Mysore State. I did not ask for the posting orders because I was not properly allotted the Mysore State. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ex. B-1 is the application submitted by me before the former Hyderabad government. I had applied for interim salary and pension from the government of Andhra Tradesh. " ( 12 ) FROM what has been stated above, it is clear that though the plaintiff in law became a servant of the Mysore government as from November 1, 1956, he deliberately refused to report for duty in that State. It is under those circumstances, the Mysore government took action on the representations made by the plaintiff on September 29, 1956 and ordered he retirement as from 2/04/1957. The said order readg as follows ; "the Mysore Gazette, Published by Authority. Vol. 92 Bangalore, Thuriday, 5/12/1957 Margazira 14, Salea Era 1879. Part II Section 1 "appointments, postings, transfers, leave, powers and other personal notices Civil Appointments. General Administration Secretariat Dated 20/11/1957. No. G. A. D. (Int.) 21 S. G. H. 57. Under Rule 306-A of the proportionate pension rules of the Ex. Hyderabad government, Sri Mohammed Qutubbuddin, Deputy Collector is permitted to retire from service with effect from 2/04/1957 after the expiry of 120 days privilege leave granted to him. By order and in the name of the governor of Mysore. No. G. A. D. (Int.) 21 S. G. H. 57. Under Rule 306-A of the proportionate pension rules of the Ex. Hyderabad government, Sri Mohammed Qutubbuddin, Deputy Collector is permitted to retire from service with effect from 2/04/1957 after the expiry of 120 days privilege leave granted to him. By order and in the name of the governor of Mysore. (Sd.)M. S. SWAMINATHAN, Assistant secretary to government General Administration Department (Int.)" ( 13 ) WE are unable to agree with the learned Counsel for the plaintiff that the provisions of Art. 311 are attracted to the impugned order. The relationship between the plaintiff and the Mysore government as from 1/11/1956 was that of an employee and the employer, It was open to an employer to terminate the services of its employee by mutual consent. For a termination of service by mutual consent, neither the provisions of Art. 311 nor the principles of natural justice are attracted. We know of no principle of law which prohibits termination of service of a government servant by the government at the government servants request. ( 14 ) IT was next contended that the termination of the plaintiffs service was purported to have been made under rule 306-A of the proportionate pension rules of the Ex-Hyderabad government and as that rule was not in force on the date, the impugned order must be held to be invalid. We see no merit in this contention Even though the termination was purported-to have been made on the basis of a non-existing rule, the fact remains that it was ordered at the request of the plaintiff. In this context, if was also urged that the proportionate pension concession rules were not in force after 31/10/1956 and therefore no orders could have been passed on the basis of those rules. Assuming that those rules were not in force when the impugned order was made, the plaintiff cannot complain against the concession shown to him. ( 15 ) FOR the reasons mentioned above we agree with the High court that as from 2/04/1957, the plaintiff cannot be considered as having been in service either under Andhra Pradesh government or Mysore government. Assuming that those rules were not in force when the impugned order was made, the plaintiff cannot complain against the concession shown to him. ( 15 ) FOR the reasons mentioned above we agree with the High court that as from 2/04/1957, the plaintiff cannot be considered as having been in service either under Andhra Pradesh government or Mysore government. ( 16 ) NOW coming to the arrears of salary, the learned Counsel for the plaintiff gave up the contention that the same is governed by Art. 120 of the Limitation Act, 1908, a contention which was strenuously pressed on his behalf in the High court as well as in the trial court. In view of the decision of the Federal court in (1)The Punjab Province v. Pandit Tarachand and of this court in (2)Shri Madhav Laxman Vaikunthe v. The State of Mysore, it was conceded that the governing provision is Art. 102 of the Limitation Act, 1908 but it was urged that in view of F. R. 52 of the Hyderabad Service Rules, we must hold that the cause of action for arrears of salary arose only after the plaintiffs suspension and reduction in rank were declared as illegal by the court. In support of that contention reliance was placed on the decision of the Madras High court in (3)State of Madras v. A V. Anantharaman. In that case it was held that in the case of dismissal of a public servant which has been subsequently set aside, the right to recover arrears of salary would accrue only when that order of dismissal has been set aside either in departmental appeal or by civil court. A claim made within three years from the date of the order setting aside the dismissal must be held to be in time under Art. 102 of the Limitation Act. It is not necessary for us in this case to examine the correctness of the decision of the Madras High court. As seen earlier, the plaintiff was reinstated in service on 1/04/1954. The suit from which this appeal arises was instituted on 3/12/1957. That being so, the plaintiff cannot take assistance from F. R. 52 which says that the pay and allowances of a government servant who is dismissed or removed from service cease from the date of such dismissal or removal. The suit from which this appeal arises was instituted on 3/12/1957. That being so, the plaintiff cannot take assistance from F. R. 52 which says that the pay and allowances of a government servant who is dismissed or removed from service cease from the date of such dismissal or removal. Rule 52 does not apply to the case of a reduction in rank or suspension from service. It only applies to cases where the government servant is either dismissed or removed from service. ( 17 ) FOR the reasons mentioned above this appeal fails and the same is dismissed but in the circumstances of the case we make no order as to costs.