Judgment B.C. RAY, J. 1. THE plaintiff filed the above appeal against the judgment and decree passed on 29th November, 1977 by Sri K. N. Mukherjee, Judge 10th Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta in Title Suit No. 1302 of 1973 dismissing the suit with costs. 2. THE' plaintiff who retired from service on 2nd April, 1967 on attaining the age of superannuation as Manager, Jail Dept., Government of West Bengal, brought an action in the 10th Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta, being Title Suit No. 302 of 1973 stating, inter alia, that after his initial appointment as a Lower Division Assistant under the Inspector General of Prisons, Government of West. Bengal, the defendant no. 4 on May 28, 1928, he by dint of his merit was ultimately promoted to the post of Manager, Jail Depot, Government of West Bengal. THE plaintiff also pleaded that he applied for earned leave accrued to, his credit by several applications dated 21st September, 1962, 31st May, 1963, 27th July, 1963, 9th August, 1963, 17th September, 1963, 14th December, 1963, 16th July, 1965 and 13th July, 1966 respectively and he repeatedly requested the defendants to grant him leave which he was entitled to under the West Bengal Service Rules. But the plaintiff's said applications except the application dated 27th July, 1963 were never considered by the defendants who did not send any reply to him. THE leave asked for by the plaintiff by his, application dated 27th July, 1963 was refused and the same was communicated to him under Memo. No. 11244/S-3 (7A/62) dated 6th August, 1963 without assigning any reason for such refusal. It has been submitted that such refusal is in violation of the provision of Rule 22 of Appendix 7 and also note 3 of Rules 153 of Section 1 of Chapter XV of West Bengal Service Rule, Part I. The plaintiff has stated that by such refusal to grant leave the total leave earned by the plaintiff and standing to his credit during his entire length of service after deducting there from the leave availed of by him is 5 years 7 months and 22 days as stated in details therein. The plaintiff has also stated that in the annual budget, provision is always made to cover leave salaries of the Government employees and the denial of leave to him inspite of enough leave to his credit amounted to violation of principles of equity, justice and good conscience. 3. THE plaintiff has pleaded that he is entitled to get the money equivalent to full pay for the said period of 5 years 7 months 22 days being unavailed of leave to his credit at his leave account at the time of his retirement and he has' thus suffered pecuniary loss to the tune of Ks. 45,000/- more or less. THE plaintiff sent letters dated 27th January, 1968, addressed to the Defendant No. 3 requesting him from illegally withholding his dues in respect of said un-availed of period of leave, but he did not receive any reply to any of the said letters from the concerned authority. Thereafter, he sent another letter on April 22, 1969 to the Minister-in-Charge of Jail Department praying for payment of his salary for the period of leave to his credit at the time of his retirement. THE defendant no. 3 sent a letter No. 2699 H. J. dated 28th September 1910 rejecting his claim for payment in lieu of leave standing to his credit on the ground that grant of leave or paying compensation in lieu thereof could not be allowed under the law by the Government. THE plaintiff sent a letter through his advocate on l0th May, 1972 requesting the defendants to pay him the salary during the period of un-availed of leave accumulated to his credit. But no reply was received by him from the defendants. Hence the said suit was filed praying for a declarations that the impugned order contained in Home (Jail) Department letter No. 2699 H. J. dated 28th September, 1970 was illegal, invalid and that the plaintiff, was entitled to avail of the earned leave under the provisions of West Bengal Service Rules, 196i Part I. There was an alternative prayer for damages or for enquiry into damages is well as for further or other relief as he is entitled to in law and equity, 4. THE defendants contested the Claim of the plaintiff by Sling a written statement submitting inter alia that the suit was not maintainable in its present form and in law or otherwise, that the defendants denied that the plaintiff was not given, any opportunity to avail of any leave from June 1947 to September, 1952 as incorrectly alleged that all the applications for leave submitted by plaintiff were duly considered, but leave could not be granted on administrative grounds as stated in paragraph 14 of the said written statement. It has also been stated that the plaintiff was, however, granted leave preparatory to retirement for four months with effect from December 2, 1966. It has also been stated therein that all the applications for leave submitted by the plaintiff were after due consideration rejected as it was considered inexpedient to grant to the plaintiff leave on administrative grounds mentioned in paragraph 14.of the-written statement. There has been no infringement of the service rules by .denying the leave. It has been further stated in paragraph 18 of the said written statement that" the Rules 180, 181 and 182 of the West Bengal Service Rules, Part I relates to the Credit and debit of leave in the leave Account of a'' Government Servant, but a Government Servant is not entitled to avail of; leaves to his credit unless the same is granted by competent authority. It has been also staled that the claim for payment in lieu of unavailed of leave is not permissible under, the West Bengal Service Rules, It has been further stated therein that no compensation was payable, in respect-of the leave not granted on administrative grounds after retirement. Moreover except in case of leave preparatory to retirement which could be granted after retirement in case such leave was refused earlier subject to other conditions for grant of such leave, no other leave accrued to the leave account of a Government Employee can be granted after his retirement. THE plaintiff is not entitled to get any of the reliefs asked for in this suit and the suit is liable to be dismissed. On the above pleadings the following issues were framed- 1. Is the suit Maintainable ? 2. Is the suit bad for defect of parties ? 3. Have the Court fees been properly paid? 4. Is the plaintiff entitled to the declarations claimed ? 5. On the above pleadings the following issues were framed- 1. Is the suit Maintainable ? 2. Is the suit bad for defect of parties ? 3. Have the Court fees been properly paid? 4. Is the plaintiff entitled to the declarations claimed ? 5. Is the plaintiff entitled to any damage ? To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff, entitled ? 6. On November 29, 1977 Sri K. N: Mukherjee Judge, 10th Bench City Civil ; Court, Calcutta, dismissed the said suit with costs holding that the plaintiff was not entitled to the grant of leave nor to the declaration that lie Was entitled to compensation for earned leave accrued to his credit which he was not allow- ed to avail of by the defendants. It was also held that the suit was barred by Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act as the' plaintiff did not seek further relief which he was entitled to. It was further held that the suit was not barred by limitation. The issue No. 2 was not pressed. The issue no. 1 was decided against the plaintiff as the suit was held to be not maintainable because of the bar of the proviso to Section 34 of the Specific Relief' Act. The issue No. 3 was decided in favour of the plaintiff as the Court fees paid on the plaint as valued was sufficient. The issues nos. 4, 5 and 6 were decided against the plaintiff as it was held that the plaintiff was neither entitled to the declarations prayed nor he was entitled to any damages. The Issue No. 7 was decided in favour of the' plaintiff' and against the defendant. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree the' instant appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff. . 5. IT was contended by the" learned Advocate for the appellant that the finding of the learned Judge that the suit was not maintainable being barred by Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act-is wrong inasmuch as ho specific issue to this" effect was framed and as such the plaintiff was deprived of the opportunity of making an application for amendment of the plaint incorporating prayer for further relief. IT has been further submitted that the declaratory relief as claimed is quite legal and sufficient in the facts of the case and no consequential relief is necessary to be asked for in the suit. IT has been further submitted that the declaratory relief as claimed is quite legal and sufficient in the facts of the case and no consequential relief is necessary to be asked for in the suit. IT has also been submitted in this connection that there is an alternate prayer for a decree for an enquiry into damages and it has been contended that the suit not hit by proviso to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. Some decisions have been cited at the bar in support of this submission. IT has been' next submitted that under the provisions of Rule 153 read with notes 1,2 and 3 and Rules 180, 181 and 183 the earned leave to the credit of an employee in his leave account may accumulate for over 5 years and the plaintiff was wrongfully refused to avail of the same. The plaintiff was entitled to compensation for the: said unavailed period of earned leave. The alternative prayer for an enquiry into damages made in the said suit is a valid v prayer and the said suit, was wrongly, held to be not maintainable. IT has been further contended' that it has been correctly found that the suit was not barred by limitation as the suit was brought within three years from the date of refusal of the plaintiff's claim, in 1970 accordance with the provisions of Article 58 of the Limitation Act. IT has beer submitted that the appeal should be allowed and the judgment and decree of the trial court should be set aside. 6. IT has been on the other hand, submitted on behalf of the respondents that the court below rightly held that the suit was not maintainable being barred by proviso to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act as no consequential relief has been sought for in the said suit though he was able to seek further relief than a mere declaration. IT has been next submitted that 'the suit is barred by limitation as the same was instituted beyond the period of limitation as provided in Article 100 of the Limitation Act, 1963. IT has been next submitted that 'the suit is barred by limitation as the same was instituted beyond the period of limitation as provided in Article 100 of the Limitation Act, 1963. IT has been lastly submitted that leave cannot be claimed as of right and the authorities have got the discretion to refuse leave if exigencies of the public service so require as provided in Rule 153 of West Bengal Service Rules Part I. The applications for leave filed by the petitioner were duly considered and for administrative reasons stated in the written statement the leave asked for could not be granted. IT has been further contended that the petitioner having retired from service 'in 1967," the leave that accumulated to "his credit in' the leave account lapsed and as such the petitioner cannot claim the 'sum equivalent to his pay for the period of his accumulate leave. The plaintiff has brought the aforesaid suit for a declaration that the impugned order contained in Home (Jails). Department Letter No.2699 H.J. dated 28th September, 1970 is illegal and invalid and inoperative being not in accordance with law. There is also a prayer for a further declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to avail of his earned leave, as guided governed by Rules 180, 181 and 182 of Section III of Chapter XV of west Bengal Service Rules, Part I, 1964. The case of the plaintiff as it appears, from his pleadings is that he was appointed as a Lower Division Assistant under the defendant No. 4 in May 1928 and he retired on superannuation on 2nd April, 1967 as Manager, Jail Depot, Government of West Bengal. During his, tenure of service he made several applications for leave to the authority concerned but without considering the applications excepting one dated,27th July, 1963 though he was in need of, leave on health grounds and settlement of private financial affairs the said applications were rejected and no leave was granted to him. He earned in total 5 years 7 months and 22 days leave in his leave account at the time of his retirement. The plaintiff suffered heavy pecuniary loss to the tune of Rs. He earned in total 5 years 7 months and 22 days leave in his leave account at the time of his retirement. The plaintiff suffered heavy pecuniary loss to the tune of Rs. 45,000/- due to non-granting of leave and so he made representations, the last being on 22nd April, 1969 to the Minister-in-Charge of Jails, Government of West Bengal requesting for not withholding the payment of his dues in respect of unavailed of period of leave as stated herein before. The said claim of the plaintiff had been repudiated by the respondent no. 3 and so this action was brought with the reliefs claimed as aforesaid. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the aforesaid pleadings the mere declaration as claimed in the aforesaid suit that the impugned order contained in the letter dated 28th September, 1970 is illegal, invalid and inoperative and will not afford the plaintiff complete relief as he has 'not prayed for further consequential relief for payment of the salary in lieu of the period of leave accumulated to his leave account at the time of his retirement. The plaintiff even after getting the aforesaid declaratory relief as claimed in I the aforesaid suit will bring further action-for a decree of the salary, in-lieu- of the accumulated leave to his credit, even though the said relief can be claimed by the plaintiff in the said suit. Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 has clearly provided that in a declaratory suit if the plaintiff being-entitled to seek further relief omits to do so the suit becomes barred and the Court shall not make any such declaration. The objective of the proviso to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act is to avoid multiplicity of suits and to prevent the person getting declaration in one suit and immediately after seeking remedy already available in another. This has been held in ILR 30 Madras 73 at page 78. In this case the plaintiff though entitled to seek further con- sequential relief have omitted to do so in the suit and the suit has been rightly held to be barred by the proviso to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act 1963. This has been held in ILR 30 Madras 73 at page 78. In this case the plaintiff though entitled to seek further con- sequential relief have omitted to do so in the suit and the suit has been rightly held to be barred by the proviso to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act 1963. This finding of the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Calcutta that the suit as framed was not maintainable under section 34 of the Specific Relief Act is quite in accordance with the law. It has been tried to be contended by Mr. Roy Chowdhury, learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of the Appellant that this findings is bad as no specific issue was framed to this effect. This submission of Mr. Roy Chowdhury is unsustainable in view ' of the fact that issue No. 1 covers this question. 7. THE decision in A.I.R. 1967 Supreme Court 436 Vemareddi Ramaraghava Reddy and Others vs. Konduru Seshu Reddy another does not apply to this case as the facts of that case are entirely different from the facts of this case. In that case the suit was brought by the worshippers of the deity for a declaration that the compromise decree was not binding on the deity. It was held that such a suit was not barred by Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act 1963. As such the suit does not fall within the purview of Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act. It was further held that the worshippers do not exercise the Deity's power-of suing to protect its own interests-, they are not entitled to recover possession of the property' improperly alienated by the She bait. 8. SIMILARLY the decision in 84 CWN 545 Siten Bose v. Ananda Bazar Patrika (P) Ltd. and others, also does not apply to the facts of this case. In that case the appellant was suspended from service for unauthorised absence from duty. The suit was filed for declaration that the purported order of suspension was illegal and void. It was held that the suit as framed was maintainable in the Civil Court inasmuch as if the declaration as prayed for was given that would give complete relief to the plaintiff. The suit was filed for declaration that the purported order of suspension was illegal and void. It was held that the suit as framed was maintainable in the Civil Court inasmuch as if the declaration as prayed for was given that would give complete relief to the plaintiff. I have already stated hereinbefore that the declaratory relief in prayer (a) of the said suit cannot give complete relief to the plaintiff unless he asked for further consequential relief for payment of the sum equivalent to his salary for the period of earned leave accumulated to his leave account at the time of retirement. The suit is, therefore, not maintainable in view of the proviso to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act 1963. 9. THE next submission on behalf of the respondents is that the suit is barred by limitation and the findings of the learned Judge to the contrary is fully wrong and unwarranted. It has been further submitted that though no cross-objection has been preferred by the learned Advocate for the respondents yet the decree is in favour of the respondents. THE respondents can challenge the findings while supporting the decree in the instant .appeal. This submission is not tenable in law in view of the provisions of Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended in 1976 which expressly provides that any respondents who may not have appealed from any part of the decree may not only support the decree but also may state that the finding against him in the Court below in respect of any issue ought to have been in his favour provided he has filed the cross-objection to the decree within the time prescribed therein. 10. THE defendants-respondents having not filed any cross-objection against the finding on the question of limitation which was decided in favour of the plaintiff are not now competent to challenge the said finding against him while supporting the decree. In this circumstance this submission tried to be advanced on behalf of the respondents-cannot be allowed to be advanced and the same cannot be considered. This submission is therefore overruled. The most pivotal question that requires to decided in this suit is as to whether under the provision of the West Bengal Service Rule Part I the plaintiff is entitled to get any relief as claimed by him in this suit. This submission is therefore overruled. The most pivotal question that requires to decided in this suit is as to whether under the provision of the West Bengal Service Rule Part I the plaintiff is entitled to get any relief as claimed by him in this suit. To decide this question it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of West Bengal Service Rules. Rule 34 chapter 3 of the West Bengal Service Rule Part I as amended upto October 1971 provides that Government servant in permanent employ- shall not be granted leave of any kind for a continuous period exceeding five years. Rule 153 of Chapter 15 provides that the leave cannot be claimed as of right. It has been further provided there in that when the exigencies of the public service so require, the authority empowered to grant leave has discretion to refuse or revoke leave of any description. Note 3 .to the said Rule further provides that it is not the intention of the Government, that leave in ordinary circumstances should be granted more sparingly, the general principle being that a Government servant need not be debarred from taking the leave which he has earned at such time and for such periods as may suit the exigencies of the public service. 11. RULE 180 of the said RULES lays down that the Government servant is entitled to credit to his leave account, two-elevenths of the period spent on duty. RULE 182 lays down that the amount of leave due to a Government servant is the balance of leave at his credit in the leave account. RULE 184 provides that the leave at the credit of a Government servant in his leave account shall lapse on the date on which he multi compulsorily retired provided that "if in sufficient time before that date he has formally- applied for leave due preparatory to retirement and been refused it then the Government Servant may be granted after the date of retirement, the amount of leave so refused subject to a maximum of six months. 12. IT has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he made .several applications to the authority concerned for grant of the earned leave accumulated to his leave account. 12. IT has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he made .several applications to the authority concerned for grant of the earned leave accumulated to his leave account. The said applications it has been pleaded in the petition are not considered at all as the leave was not granted though the petitioner applied for leave for health reasons as well as for pecuniary consideration. IT has been further pleaded that he has sustained pecuniary; loss to the tune of Rs. 45,000/- which is equivalent to pay of the petitioner for 5 years 7 months and 22 days leave accrued to his credit at the time of his retirement. IT has been stated in paragraph 14 of the written statement that all the applications made by the petitioner for leave were" duly and properly considered by the authority concerned and in each case for administrative reasons and for exigency of the public service the leave asked for by the petitioner could not be granted. IT has also been stated in this connection that the leave asked for was not denied arbitrarily at all. The petitioner, has also failed to prove by cogent evidence that his applications for leave were rejected by the concerned authority arbitrarily or without any consideration. Even assuming for argument's sake that the applications for leave made by the petitioner was rejected arbitrarily without proper consideration, still, then the petitioner can not get any compensation unless the West Bengal Service Rules by which the terms and conditions of the service of the petitioner, are governed expressly provide for such payment of accumulated earned leave to the credit of an employee at the time of his retirement. The petitioner being an employee under the State Government the terms and conditions of the Service are governed by the West Bengal Service Rules as he has acquired a status since he entered into the Government service. Therefore, if the 'service rules do not provide for, payment of salary in lieu of accumulated earned leave to the leave account of an employee after retirement, the, plaintiff can not get any relief in the shape of pecuniary compensation. 19. Rule 184 of the West "Bengal. Service Rule's Part I clearly provides that the total leave that accumulated to the credit of a Government employee shall lapse on the date on which he must compulsorily retire. 19. Rule 184 of the West "Bengal. Service Rule's Part I clearly provides that the total leave that accumulated to the credit of a Government employee shall lapse on the date on which he must compulsorily retire. In this case, the petitioner has compulsorily retired from service on attainment of superannuation on 2nd of April, 1967 and the instant action has been brought claiming the aforesaid relief in September, 1973 i.e. over 6 years after his retirement from service. Accordingly to the Specific provision of Rule 184 of the West Bengal Service Rules Part I the Earned leave accumulated to the leave account of the plaintiff 'lapsed oh' his retirement from service. The plaintiff-appellant is, therefore, not entitled to get any relief in the shape of monetary compensation in terms of the salary in lieu of the accumulated leave in his leave account. The findings of the Court below that the plaintiff cannot get any relief on account of such accumulated earned leave on the ground that he was not allowed to enjoy the leave is quite in accordance with the law. 13. THERE is no infirmity in the findings arrived at by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Calcutta. For the reasons aforesaid this appeal fails and it is therefore dismissed with costs. The judgment and decree of the court, below are hereby affirmed. Appeal dismissed.