JUDGMENT : S.K. Ray, J. - The Plaintiff is the Appellant from a reversing decision dated 16-3-1968 of Sri K.M. Misra, Subordinate Judge, Aska, passed in Money Appeal No. 6 of 1967, dismissing most of the claim in the suit except a sum of Rs. 20/- only on account of D.A. from March to June, with proportionate costs thereon with pendent late and future interest at 12% per annum. 2. The Plaintiff served as Headmaster of Radbashyam Middle English School, Padmanavpur from 25-10-1961 till 21-1-1966, when his services were terminated. This School was represented by its Managing Committee who is the sole Defendant in the case. The Plaintiff claimed for recovery of a sum of Rs. 824/- comprising several heads of claim. He claimed one month's salary in lieu of notice, and also for having worked during the summer vacations of 1964, 1965 and 1966 and also during the X'mas holidays of 1964 and 1966. He has coupled with this, his further claim of D.A. for four months from March to June, 1966. 3. The trial Court granted a decree for Rs. 238/- which comprised D.A. for four months, and his claim for having worked during the Bummer vacations of 1964 and 1965. Against this decree of the trial Court an appeal was preferred by the school and also a cross-appeal by the Plaintiff. This cross-appeal related only to the claim of one month's pay for having worked during the summer vacation of 1966. He never preferred a cross-appeal against the decree rejecting his claim for a month's salary on account of his services having been terminated without notice. 4. The Appellate Court dismissed the cross-appeal and allowed the appeal except in respect of a sum of Rs. 20/- towards D.A. for three months, March-June of 1966. Hence this appeal is by the Plaintiff. 5. The lower Appellate Court has found that the Respondent-Managing Committee never passed a resolution detaining the Plaintiff for work during the summer vacation of any year, nor did it approve any proposal of the Plaintiff that he shall work during any summer vacation. The Plaintiff has admitted that he voluntarily remained in charge of the school during the summer-vacation and the X'mas holidays. The Plaintiff has admitted that he voluntarily remained in charge of the school during the summer-vacation and the X'mas holidays. In absence of any requirement being made by the Managing Committee that the Plaintiff was required to be detained during any summer vacation for work, the Plaintiff cannot claim any salary on that head. It may be noted that the Plaintiff has also made clear and categorical statements that the other Headmasters do not get allowance when they remain in charge during a vacation. On this finding, the main claim under appeal was rejected by the lower Appellate Court except the small amount as stated above. I do not find any question of law being involved in this second appeal, nor is there a semblance of any ground of law raised in this Court. 6. Mr. Murty for the Respondent, has also raised a preliminary ground that the second appeal is not maintainable u/s 102, Code of Civil Procedure, which provides: No second appeal shall He in any suit of the nature cognizable by Courts of Small Causes, when the amount or value of the subject matter of the original suit does not exceed one thousand rupees. In this case the original claim was less than one thousand rupees. The next question on which he has founded his objection is that the suit is of the nature cognisable by Courts of Small Causes. Section 15(1), provides that a Court of Small Causes shall not take cognizance of suits specified in the second schedule, as suits excepted from the cognizance of a Court of Small Causes. Sub-section (2) thereof provides (sic) Subject to the' exceptions specified in that schedule and to the provisions of any enactment for the time being in force, all suits of a civil nature of which the value does not exceed five hundred rupees shall be cognisable by a Court of Small Causes. The present suit does not come within the nature of suits specified in second schedule of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. Therefore it cannot be deemed to be a suit which is excepted from the cognizance of a Court of Small Causes. This is a suit by the Plaintiff for recovery of money on account of his arrear of pay and other fees, the total value of which is being Rs. 824/- does not exceed rupees one thousand. Therefore it cannot be deemed to be a suit which is excepted from the cognizance of a Court of Small Causes. This is a suit by the Plaintiff for recovery of money on account of his arrear of pay and other fees, the total value of which is being Rs. 824/- does not exceed rupees one thousand. This being so, Section 102, CPC directly applies, and the second appeal on that account is not maintainable. For the aforesaid reasons, there is no merit in this appeal, and it is accordingly dismissed. There would, however, be no order as to costs of this Court.