JUDGMENT A.H. Saikia, J. 1. Heard Mr. B.K. Ghosh, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. N. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the appellant and also heard Mr. R.P. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This appeal has been preferred against judgment and decree dated 10.3.2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Darrang, Mongaldoi in Money Suit No. 2/92. The suit was partly decreed at Rs. 50,800 on contest with costs which was later on corrected as Rs. 60,800 vide order dated 5.6.2000 due to the clerical/arithmetical mistake committed in calculating the decreetal amount. The only grievance of the appellant in this appeal is that though suit was partly decreed, the main relief sought in the Money suit has not been redressed. 3. The facts in brief are that the appellant and plaintiff instituted the present Money Suit against the defendants/respondents for payment of arrear salaries, outstanding bill and damages for wrongful dismissal from service. His case was that he was appointed as Manager (Electrical) by the defendant/respondent No. 1 vide appointment letter dated 4.7.1989. As per terms and conditions stipulated the said appointment letter appellant was appointed on a monthly consolidated salary of Rs. 12,000/-. Besides such fixed salary, he was also inter-alia entitled to children education allowances of Rs. 2,400/- per annum, company's contributory provident fund with company's contribution @10% of the consolidated salary, superannuation benefit with company's contribution therein @ 15% of the consolidated salary and annual leave fair concession of Rs. 6,000/- per annum as stipulated in clauses 9, 10, 11 and 13 respectively of the abovementioned terms and conditions of the appointment. 4. While the appellant was working as Manager in pursuant to the terms and condition of the appointment letter dated 4.7.1989, suddenly the respondents vide communication dated 2.1.1990 informed the appellant as regards the break-up of the consolidated salary to be paid to him as remuneration for rendering service as Manager under the establishment of the respondents. The said communication reads as follows: "THE PRAG BOSIMI SYNTHETICS LIMITED MONALISA, MOUNT MARY STEPS, ST. JOHN BAPTIST ROAD, BANDRA (W), BOMBAY-400 050 2.1.1990 Ref. No. PER/05 Mr. Binod Saharia, PBS Ltd., Narangi Tiniali, Near Commerce College, R.G. BaruahRoad, Guwahati - 781005 ASSAM Dear Sir, This has reference to your appointment order dated 4th July, 1989 to clarify the details of our remuneration we give below the break-up of the consolidated salary mentioned in the Order. JOHN BAPTIST ROAD, BANDRA (W), BOMBAY-400 050 2.1.1990 Ref. No. PER/05 Mr. Binod Saharia, PBS Ltd., Narangi Tiniali, Near Commerce College, R.G. BaruahRoad, Guwahati - 781005 ASSAM Dear Sir, This has reference to your appointment order dated 4th July, 1989 to clarify the details of our remuneration we give below the break-up of the consolidated salary mentioned in the Order. (a) Basic salary of Rs. 7350/- per month. (b) Education Allowance of Rs. 200/- per month. (c) Leave Fare Concession of Rs. 6000/- per annum. (d) Reimbursement of Medical Expenses to the extent of Rs. 7350/- per annum. (e) Reimbursement of Travel Expenses on company's work Rs. 1500/- per month. The above is effective from the date of your joining. Please note that this letter supersedes the above mentioned Appointment Order with regard to your perquisite only. All other terms and conditions mentioned therein will remained unchanged. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, For THE PRAG BOSIMI SYNTHETICS LTD. Sd/-Illegible 2.1.1990 C.K.KOSHY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR" 5. As per the said break-up, basic salary has been shown at Rs. 7,350- per month, leave fare concession was fixed at Rs. 6,000/- per annum, reimbursement of medical expenses was given to the extent of Rs. 7,350/- per annum, reimbursement of travel expenses on company's work was fixed at Rs. 1,500/- per month and provident fund and superannuation contribution were fixed @ 10% and @ 15% of the basic salary respectively. Since the appellant was receiving Rs. 12,000/- as monthly consolidated salary apart from other remuneration which are exactly similar as per break-up shown vide communication dated 2.1.1990, he was deprived of the said salary of Rs. 12,000/- due to such drastic cut in his salary fixing Rs. 7,350/- per month only as basic pay for which he objected to the respondents vide communication dated 5.2.1990 which was exhibited as Exhibit No. 3. Thereafter, the plaintiff/appellant made protracted correspondences to the authority concerned protesting such refixation of his salary with the break-up as per communication dated 2.1.1990. Having failed to get any response, the appellant served a legal notice dated 28.8.1991 upon the respondent No. 2, the Managing Director of the company, claiming the accumulated arrear of pay on the basic of his original salary of Rs. 12,000/- per month with interest, including other company's contributions contained in the appointment letter dated 4.7.1989. Having failed to get any response, the appellant served a legal notice dated 28.8.1991 upon the respondent No. 2, the Managing Director of the company, claiming the accumulated arrear of pay on the basic of his original salary of Rs. 12,000/- per month with interest, including other company's contributions contained in the appointment letter dated 4.7.1989. But the respondents immediately after receipt of the said legal notice, terminated the plaintiff appellant from service vide communication dated 21.10.1991 (Exhibit No. 14). Against such illegal termination as well as nonpayment of arrear salary and other benefits, the appellant as plaintiff filed the suit claiming a decree for an amount of Rs. 3,24,288.27 which was later on reduced to Rs. 2,88,723.89 by filing amended plaint with Revised Schedule-A on 8.6.1998. 6. The respondents contested the suit by submitting the written statement wherein the respondents denied the averments made in the plaint and stated inter-alia that there was no violation of any terms and conditions of the appointment and the appellant was never wrongfully terminated from service. According to the respondents that the appellant entered into a new contract vide new appointment letter dated 2.1.1990 and the plaintiff/appellant after accepting the terms and conditions stipulated in the new appointment letter dated 2.1.1990 started accepting the remuneration. The respondents further denied that the appellant was entitled to get Rs. 12,000/- per month as his salary as claimed by him. 7. The learned Civil Judge on consideration of the pleadings of the parties framed as many as four issues which are as follows : 1) Whether there is a cause of action of the suit? 2) Whether the suit is barred by the principles of estoppel, waiver or acquiescence? 3) Wherein the plaintiff is entitled to the amount claimed? 4) Any other relief/relieves parties are entitled to? 8. At the time of hearing, the appellant examined himself as PW1. But the defendants adduced none. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned Civil Judge decided the issue Nos. 1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiff and as regards issue No. 3, the learned Civil Judge decreed a) an amount of Rs. 36,000/- being three months remuneration @ Rs. But the defendants adduced none. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned Civil Judge decided the issue Nos. 1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiff and as regards issue No. 3, the learned Civil Judge decreed a) an amount of Rs. 36,000/- being three months remuneration @ Rs. 12,000/- per month in lieu of three months notice due to the condition of appointment that on completion of probation, service was liable to be terminated on 3 month's notice from either side or 3 months' remuneration in lieu of such notice; b) Rs. 6,000/- as leave fare concession for one year; and c) Rs. 18,800/- as earned leave encashment totalling Rs. 50,800/- refusing to grant any relief as regards the salary @ Rs. 12,000/- per month with interest as detailed in revised Schedule-A observing that as the appellant had been serving and drawing his salary and other remuneration as per new break-up of salary vide letter dated 2.1.1990, it could be inferred that impliedly he accepted the term and any objection put up by the appellant by making correspondence, as claimed, was not established. Since there was an arithmetical mistake in calculating the amount, vide order dated 5.6.2000, decreetal amount was re-fixed at Rs. 60,800/- instead of Rs. 50,800/-. 9. On a close perusal of the appointment letter dated 4.7.1989, it explicitly appears that the plaintiff, apart from fixation of monthly salary at Rs. 12,000/- as consolidated salary, was entitled to get other perquisites as mentioned in Clauses 9, 10, 11 and 15 of the appointment letter. On the other hand, the communication dated 2.1.1990 goes to show that basic salary of the appellant was fixed at Rs. 7,500/- per month with all other allowances to which he was entitled to and those were exactly similar to the additional allowances given to him as mentioned in the appointment letter dated 4.7.1989. That apart, it has also come on the evidence that feeling aggrieved by the revised salary break-up as shown in the communication dated 2.1.1990, the appellant had already placed his objection vide letter dated 5.2.1990 which was exhibited as Exhibit No. 3. But the authority did not pay any heed to such protest. That apart, it has also come on the evidence that feeling aggrieved by the revised salary break-up as shown in the communication dated 2.1.1990, the appellant had already placed his objection vide letter dated 5.2.1990 which was exhibited as Exhibit No. 3. But the authority did not pay any heed to such protest. Further it appears from the record and the evidence that appellant was accepting the revised scale only on protest and ultimately having found no alternative, legal notice dated 28.8.1991 had been served upon the respondents by the appellant. Records also reveals that immediately after such legal notice to which the authority was unresponsive, the plaintiff/appellant was terminated from service with immediate effect vide order dated 21.10.1991. 10. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties at length and also on meticulous inspection of the materials available on records including the impugned judgment, we are of considered view that by the letter dated 2.1.1990, the pay structure of the appellant was entirely changed giving him only an amount of Rs. 7,350/- per month without showing any valid or good reasons for such abrupt reduction of salary and that too without giving him any opportunity of hearing in this regard. The communication dated 2.1.1990 was made at the whims of the authorities in violation of service conditions. Therefore, we hold that the appellant is entitled to a pay scale of Rs. 12,000/- per month which was slashed without notice to Rs. 7,350/- per month, with effect from January 1990 till his termination i.e. on 6th November, 1991 with all other allowances and benefits contained in the communication dated 2.1.1990. 11. Since the appellant had been accepting the revised salary with basic pay at Rs. 7,350/- p.m. from January 1990 till his termination i.e. 6.11.1991, the difference of salary i.e. Rs. 12,000/ - Rs. 7,350 = Rs. 4,650/- per month from January 1990 to 6.11.1991 including provident fund contribution @ 10% and company's contribution on superannuation @ 15% as shown in the revised Schedule-A in the plaint is hereby decreed. 12. In the result the appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated above. Appeal allowed