JUDGMENT : P.K. Tripathy, J. - Defendants in Money Suit No. 4 of 1984 of the Court of Addl. Subordinate Judge, Berhampur (Money Suit No. 79 of 1980 of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Berhampur) have preferred this appeal challenging the decree for payment of money as claimed by the plaintiff-respondent. 2. As it reveals from the pleadings plaintiff's case is that while working as Sectional Officer in R.E. Section, Koraput under Defendant No. 4, i.e. the Assistant Engineer, R.E. Sub-Division, Koraput he was transferred and posted in Ganjam District. Accordingly, by order No. 306 (2) dated 22.5.1967 afternoon he was relieved by Defendant No. 4 and after availing the transit he joined in R.E.Division of Berhampur. Defendant No. 4 forwarded his L.R.C. showing his date of relief as 20.5.1967 as a result of which his salary was not drawn from 21.5.1967 to 2.6.1967 and thereafter his annual increments were not given in spite of repeated approach and request, When failed to draw attention and sympathy of the superior authorities like Superintending Engineer, R.E.O. (Southern Circle), Berhampur (Defendant No. 2) and Executive Engineer. R.E. Division, Koraput (Defendant No. 3) and also Defendant No. 4 he was compelled to approach this Court for the payment of the arrear salary and grant of annual increments after serving notice u/s 80, C.P.C. His total claims were valued at Rs. 21,949,15 which was calculated upto end of August, 1980. In the joint written statement Defendants 1 to 4 denied the plaint allegations. It was stated in that written statement that he was relieved on 20.5.1967 though the date of relief might have been shown as 22.5.1967. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff did not apply for sanction of leave or extension of joining time to regularise the excess period consumed in transit and that since the aforesaid matter was not regularised annual increments to cross E.B. with effect from 1.1.1 970 and onwards the further annual increment and other monetary claim could not be granted. It was thus prayed to dismiss the suit. It was thus prayed to dismiss the suit. Notwithstanding the aforesaid written statement, as it reveals.from the impugned judgment and the evidence in record that the period of joining time was regularised by the authorities and annual increments as claimed by the plaintiff was granted in his favour at a subsequent stage after filing of the written statement yet the Defendants contested the suit on the ground plaintiff's claim is not maintainable and it is barred,by time. 3. On the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed: 1. Whether the plaintiff was relieved of his duties on 22.5.1967 from Koraput? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the salary from 20.5.1967 to 22.5.1967? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the differential claims shown in the plaint ? 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the suit claim ? 5. Whether there was any cause of action for the suit '? 6. Whether this Court has jurisdiction to try the suit ? 7. Whether the claim is in time ? 8. To what relief ? 4. In support of his case plaintiff examined himself as P.W. 1 and relied upon the documents vide Ext. 1 series to Ext. 5 i.e. the document relating to issue and service of notice u/s 80, C.P.C. and different entries and orders passed by the authorities relating to service of the plaintiff. From the side of the Defendants/appellants, Junior Engineer. Project Division, Koraput, namely 1. Rajamohan Rao was examined as D.W. 1 and he proved Ext. A i.e. the letter issued by the Executive Engineer, Phulbanr (R & B) Division regarding sanction of periodical increments and sanction of E.B. etc. for a particular period. 5. Learned trial Judge while deciding issue Nos. 1, 2 and 3 recorded the findings that the plaintiff's claim regarding the date of relief and the claim of monetary benefit are genuine and sustainable. So far as the remaining issues are concerned, in the light of the decision on issue Nos. 1, 2 and 3 he answered the issues in favour of the plaintiff including the issue relating to the limitation and accordingly decreed the suit. 6. During the course of argument Mr. P.K. Nanda. Addl. So far as the remaining issues are concerned, in the light of the decision on issue Nos. 1, 2 and 3 he answered the issues in favour of the plaintiff including the issue relating to the limitation and accordingly decreed the suit. 6. During the course of argument Mr. P.K. Nanda. Addl. Standing Counsel, while challenging the impugned judgment argues that the question of limitation was not properly considered and decided by the trial Court inasmuch as the money claimed beyond the period of three years from the date of institution of the suit was also considered and decree was granted accordingly. Accordingly to him, when arrear salary was due from 20.5.1967 to 3.6.1967 was not paid within a period of three years and the annual increments were not given from 1.1.1970 and onwards the claim upto 1 1.9.1977 could not have been entertained because the suit was filed on 11.9.1980. He also states that except the aforesaid contention he has no other contention to advance in this appeal while challenging the impugned judgment. 7. Before dealing with the point raised by the appellants it may be noted that this is a peculiar case of its own nature that for a trifle matter of regularising three days excess transit alleged to have been availed, without asking for any explanation or initiating departmental proceedings or taking any other suitable administrative action, the defendants sat over the matter for a long period of about 14 years and ultimately filed the written statement not specifically denying the date of relief to be 22.5.1967 and in addition to that after filing of written statement denying the plaint allegations the defendants not only regularised the said excess period but also granted the E.B. with effect from 1.1.1 970 and regularised the service record and the increments, which has been mentioned in the impugned judgment and which aspect also is not disputed by the learned Additional Standing Counsel. Such a small matter was not sorted out in 1967 or within a period of few months thereafter but it was allowed to linger and continue for over a decade and yet the defendants who are the senior government officers came and contested the litigation without knowing the purpose of such contest. Such a small matter was not sorted out in 1967 or within a period of few months thereafter but it was allowed to linger and continue for over a decade and yet the defendants who are the senior government officers came and contested the litigation without knowing the purpose of such contest. When the defendants themselves have already regularised the service of the plaintiff and the alleged period of absence, plaintiff as a government servant can draw the claimed amount as arrear salary and for that the period of limitation may not strictly count being covered by the principle of acquiescence. This aspect is not at all duly thought over by the learned Additional Standing Counsel when he advanced the above noted argument. This Court does not find any lacuna in the impugned judgment including any lacuna for not specifically answering on the question of limitation in view of the specific findings regarding the defendants' conduct in regularising the service and the alleged period of absence by the time of beginning of the trial of the suit. Thus, there is nothing to interfere with the impugned judgment and the same is dismissed with costs all throughout in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. Since the plaintiff has been deprived of his legitimate dues the decretal dues be paid to him within a period of six months hence failing which it shall bear a further penal interest of 12% with cumulative effect and in that event Government may realise the excess amount paid from the erring officers responsible for the delay in payment. Final Result : Dismissed