JUDGMENT : P.K. Misra, J. - The Plaintiff was an employee under the State Government in the Agriculture Department and retired as such on 31-3-1987. He filed the suit seeking for a direction "to render accounts of his arrear salary from 1-3-1970 to 31-3-1987 and...to pay the same with interest from 7-1-1987 till the date of payment". 2. The trial court passed a preliminary decree by judgment dated 29-2-1988 directing Defendants 2 to 3 to render accounts of the arrears of the salary of the Plaintiff from 1-3-1970 to 31-3-1987 and further directed the District Agriculture Officer, Aska, to pay the same with interest at the rate of six percent per annum from 1.4-1987 till the final date of payment. It was also directed that the cost of the suit was to be paid by Defendant No. 3, the District Agriculture Officer, Aska. Thereafter, the Defendants had filed Money Appeal No..12 of 1988 which was dismissed by the 2nd. Addl. District Judge, Ganjam at Berhambur by judgment dated 1-2-1989. In the meantime, the Plaintiff had initiated final decree proceeding numbered as F.D.M.S. No. 23/87. The final decree has been passed by the trial court directing Defendant No. 3. the, District Agriculture Officer, Aska, to pay the dues of the Plaintiff from 1.3-1970 to 31-3-1987 which has been quantified at Rs. 99,157.80 paisa. The trial court also directed that the gratuity for 161/2 months at the rate of Rs. 2,450/amounting to Rs. 40,425/- shall also be paid. The aforesaid amount was directed to be paid with interest at the rate of six percent per annum. The trial court further directed that the Plaintiff was entitled to the pension at the rate of Rs. 1,225/- and D.A. thereon as permissible under law. It was further directed that Defendant No. 3, the District Agriculture Officer. Aska, was to pay a sum.of Rs. 3.681.80 paisa towards the cast of the final decree. The aforesaid final decree has been challenged by the three Defendants. 3. The learned Counsel appearing far the State has contended that the suit being one relating to the employment of the Plaintiff as a Government servant, was not maintainable before the Civil Court and the dispute should have been filed before the State Administrative Tribunal. It is, therefore, contended that the final decree should be set aside. 4. On going through the decision of the Addl. It is, therefore, contended that the final decree should be set aside. 4. On going through the decision of the Addl. District Judge in Money Appeal No. 12 of 1988, it appears that such a contention had been raised against the preliminary decree and the said contention had been negative. Since the said decision had not been challenged any further it would not be appropriate for the Appellant to raise the question again at the stage of appeal against the final decree. 5. The learned Counsel far the Appellant then contented that the direction regarding the payment of Rs. 40.425/- towards the gratuity and payment of Rs. 1,225/- along with the D.A. towards the monthly pension were not contemplated in the preliminary decree.or in the suit and as such, can not be sustained. Such submission made by the counsel far the Appellant has to be accepted by me willy-nilly. A perusal.of the plaint as well as the preliminary decree clearly indicates that the prayer.of the Plaintiff was confined to furnishing of accounts relating to monthly salary from 1-3-1970 to 31-3-1987 and there was no prayer for any direction regarding payment at gratuity of monthly pension. The preliminary decree is also specific an question wherein there is a direction that accounts should be furnished relating to the arrear salary payable from 1-3-1970 to 31-3-1987. It is well settled that.in a final decree preceding the court cannot travel beyond the direction contained in the preliminary decree. As such, the trial court committed illegality in giving a direction regarding payment of gratuity amounting to Rs. 40,425/- and giving a further direction regarding the payment of monthly pension. Such directions contained in the final decree ale accordingly set aside. However, it is made clear that deletion of such directions relating to payment of gratuity and monthly pension would not stand in the way of the appropriate authorities to consider the question of payment of gratuity and pension. 6. The learned Counsel for the Appellant has not been able to point out any other mistake or flaw in the final decree. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is allowed in part. The directions regarding payment of Rs. 40,425/- and payment of monthly pension are set aside and the direction regarding payment of arrear salary to the tune of Rs. 99,157,80 paisa with interest at the rate of six per cent per annum is confirmed. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is allowed in part. The directions regarding payment of Rs. 40,425/- and payment of monthly pension are set aside and the direction regarding payment of arrear salary to the tune of Rs. 99,157,80 paisa with interest at the rate of six per cent per annum is confirmed. It is made clear that the cost as payable by Defendant No. 3 is not in his personal capacity but in the official capacity. There will be no order as to cost of the present appeal. Appeal allowed. Final Result : Allowed