Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1799 (RAJ)

Kanti Lal v. State of Rajasthan

2005-07-18

DINESH MAHESHWARI, RAJESH BALIA

body2005
Judgment Dinesh Maheshwari, J.-The plaintiffs have preferred this intra-Court appeal against the Judgment dated 211.1990 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil First Appeal No. 31/1988, whereby the learned Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiffs and maintained the Judgment and decree dated 212.1987 passed by the District Judge, Sirohi in Civil Suit No. 22/1971, whereby, the suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of the alleged arrears of salary, pension and gratuity of late Tara Chand Dosi was partly decreed only towards the amount of pension and gratuity against the defendant No. 1 State of Rajasthan and rest of the claim was disallowed. 2. The plaintiffs appellants are heirs of late Tara Chand Dosi who was an Assistant Engineer in the erstwhile State of Sirohi having initially entered the service on 04.07.1918. An order appointing him Assistant Engineer, Abu Road was passed on 22.01.1948. While he continued to serve as such, on 011.1948, the then Sirohi State entered into a merger agreement with the Government of India. The administration of merged Sirohi State was handed-over to the then State of Bombay on the eve of commencement of the Constitution of India. However, certain territories in the State of Sirohi of Pindwara, Reodar and Bhawari were not taken over by the State of Bombay and the administration thereof was handed-over to the then Government of United State of Rajasthan by a notification dated 24.01.1950 under the Extra Provincial Jurisdiction Act, 1947. 3. Late Tara Chand Dosi was the Assistant Engineer, Abu Road in the Sirohi State at the time of merger of Sirohi with the Dominion of India and the Abu Road area fell in the administration of the State of Bombay under the merger order dated 25.01.1950. There is no dispute about the fact that late Tara Chand Dosi continued to serve under the State of Bombay till 31.05.1950 when he was relieved in pursuance to an order passed by the Government of Bombay on 26.04.1950. 4. The plaintiffs by filing the suit on 21.08.1971 levied a claim for arrears of salary of late Tara Chand from 05.02.1936 to 23.01.1948 and then from 01.06.1950 to 31.05.1955 and of pension and gratuity. 5. The claim of arrears of salary had two facets. The amount of salary for the period 05.02.1936 to 23.01.1948 of Rs. 4. The plaintiffs by filing the suit on 21.08.1971 levied a claim for arrears of salary of late Tara Chand from 05.02.1936 to 23.01.1948 and then from 01.06.1950 to 31.05.1955 and of pension and gratuity. 5. The claim of arrears of salary had two facets. The amount of salary for the period 05.02.1936 to 23.01.1948 of Rs. 16,305.35 was claimed on the ground that this period of break in service was condoned by the erstwhile State of Sirohi and payment for this period ought to have been made. An amount of Rs. 13,125/-was claimed towards salary from 01.06.1950 to 31.05.1955 on the ground that relieving of late Tara Chand by State of Bombay on 31.05.1950 was illegal and he could not have been retired before attaining 60 years of age which he would have attained only on 31.05.1955. Further, according to the plaintiffs, on correct calculation of the pension payable he was entitled for an amount of Rs. 6,492.03 and for gratuity of Rs. 7,650/-. 6. The suit was filed on 21.08.1971 against the State of Rajasthan and the Executive Engineer, Public Words Department (South Division) (Buildings and Roads), Sirohi after serving a notice under Section 80, CPC, on 210.1970 on the Chief Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan, the Collector, Sirohi and the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department (South Division) (Buildings and Roads), Sirohi. 7. The claim so made by the plaintiffs was contested by the defendants primarily on the grounds that the headquarter of late Tara Chand Dosi continued at Abu Road and no orders were passed by the Rajasthan Government for changing of the headquarter. On 02.03.1950, an order was issued by the Administrator of Abu and Abu Road area asking for the options from the employees about their desire to be absorbed in Rajasthan or Bombay and in pursuance thereof late Tara Chand submitted the option seeking absorption in Bombay province and, therefore, he was serving under the Bombay Province and the Bombay Government relieved him from services on 31.05.1950. He was never absorbed in the services in Rajasthan State and, therefore, claim on the basis of the retirement on attaining the age of 60 years on 31.05.1955 was entirely baseless. He was never absorbed in the services in Rajasthan State and, therefore, claim on the basis of the retirement on attaining the age of 60 years on 31.05.1955 was entirely baseless. It was also pointed out that late Shri Dosi was relieved as back as on 31.05.1950 by the Bombay State and he had expired on 17.01.1960 and the suit filed by the plaintiffs was hopelessly barred by limitation. 8. The central and pivotal question involved in the case obviously relates to status of late Tara Chand upon merger of the erstwhile Sirohi State and as to whether the plaintiffs could maintain a claim against the State of Rajasthan? Of course, another serious question remains as to whether the suit is within limitation? 9. After considering the pleadings of the parties the learned Additional District Judge, Sirohi in the first place, on 29.08.1973 framed only the preliminary issue as to whether the suit was within limitation? After hearing the parties, the learned Additional District Judge by his Judgment and decree dated 19.03.1974 came to the conclusion that the suit was hopelessly barred by time. The learned Judge was of opinion that the claim for arrears of salary was governed by Article 7 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (corresponding of Article 102 of the Act of 1908). The learned Judge was of opinion that no question of fixation was involved and the salary fell due month by month and the last claim of pension also fell due in January, 1960 and even if residuary Article 113 of the Act of 1963 was applied to a claim for arrears of pension, the suit was barred by limitation because a period of more than 11 years elapsed after the death of Tara Chand. The learned Judge, therefore, did not settle any other issue nor decided any other question and dismissed the suit as barred by limitation. 10. This dismissal of the suit as barred by limitation did not meet with its approval from this Court in Civil First Appeal No. 141/1974 decided on 20.02.1986. The learned Judge, therefore, did not settle any other issue nor decided any other question and dismissed the suit as barred by limitation. 10. This dismissal of the suit as barred by limitation did not meet with its approval from this Court in Civil First Appeal No. 141/1974 decided on 20.02.1986. The learned Single Judge considered the facts and circumstances of the case and found that prima facie it could not be said at the outset that the suit in toto was barred by time and that the point of limitation could have been decided after recording evidence and after considering as to how much of the claim was within limitation and how much of the claim was barred by limitation. It was found from the letter dated 20.07.1968 that the pension claimed by the deceased was not disputed by the Government and what was stated was that the pension would be determined according to the Rules of the Sirohi State because the deceased retired on 31.05.1950. The learned Single Judge was of opinion that when the Government had not denied the claim of the appellant, it could not be said that the whole of the suit was barred by time and it was always essential question of fact as to from which date the period of limitation would commence. It was also observed that it would be an unfair action and morally illegal and unjustifiable to deny arrears of salary to the incumbent if it be due to him. The Judgment and decree dated 19.03.1974 were set aside and the case was remanded. However, the learned Single Judge made it clear that it would be open for the defendants to raise the plea of limitation and all other pleas which are available to them without prejudice to any observation made in the order. 11. After remand the suit was taken up for trial by the learned trial Court. However, the learned Single Judge made it clear that it would be open for the defendants to raise the plea of limitation and all other pleas which are available to them without prejudice to any observation made in the order. 11. After remand the suit was taken up for trial by the learned trial Court. On 21.07.1986 the following issues were framed:- Þ1- vk;k oknhx.k LoxhZ; rkjkpan ds dk;e eqdke o okjhlku gaS\ 2- vk;k oknh la[;k 2 QkjrwyvDy gS vkSj og vius fgrksa dks ugha le>rk gS] vr% oknh la[;k 1 mldk jQhd gS ,oa oknh la[;k 1 dk oknh la[;k 2 ds fo#) dksbZ fgr ugha gS\ 3- vk;k oknhx.k la[;k 3] 4 o 6 ls 11 dh vksj ls oknh la[;k 5 tujy ikoj vkWQ vVksjuh gksYMj gS vkSj bl gSfl;r ls mlus budh vksj ls okn isk fd;k gS\ 4- vk;k LoxhZ; rkjkpan nks"kh dks cEcbZ ljdkj us fnukad 31-05-1950 dks lsok ls eqä dj fn;k\ 5- vk;k eq[; vfHk;Urk dk vknsk fnukad 20-07-1968 xyr Fkk\ 6- vk;k LoxhZ; rkjkpan nks"kh dks cEcbZ jkT; }kjk fnukad 31-05-1950 dks lsok eqä djus ds ckn Hkh jktLFkku jkT; ds ukSdj Fks\ 7- vk;k Jh rkjkpan nks"kh dks fnukad 31-05-1950 ls lsok eqä djus ds ipkr~ mudh ukSdjh fnukad 31-05-1955 rd ekuh tk ldrh gS\ 8- vk;k oknhx.k okn in la[;k pkj esa crk;s vuqlkj 01-06-1950 ls 31-05-1955 rd dh rU[kkg ds #i;s 13]125@& izkIr djus ds vf /kdkjh gSa\ a crk;s vuqlkj is 9- vk;k oknhx.k okn in la[;k uks esUku ds #i;s 6]492-03 iSls izkIr djus ds vf /kdkjh gaS\ 10- vk;k Jh rkjkpan nks"kh dks dkSafly ds izLrko fnukad 23-01-1948 ds vuqlkj fnukad 05-02-1936 ls 23-01-1948 rd dh Jh nks"kh dh czsd bu lafoZl dks dUMksu fd;k x;k vkSj fnukad 05-02-1936 ls fnukad 23-01-1948 rd dh iwjh rU[kkg nsus ds vknsk gq,\ 11- vk;k oknhx.k fnukad 05-02-1936 ls 23-01-1948 rd rU[kkg ds #i;s 16]305-35 iSls ikus ds vf /kdkjh gaS\ lkj is 12- vk;k oknhx.k okn i= la[;k 13 esa crk;s vuqUku Dyse fnukad 01-06-1955 ls 17-01-1960 rd #i;s 6]492-03 iSls o xzsP;wVh dh jde #i;s 7]650@& ikus dsvf /kdkjh gSa\ 13- vk;k oknhx.k okn in la[;k 15 esa crk; s vuqlkj#i;s 43]572-38 iSls ikus ds vf /kdkjh gaS\ 14- vk;k oknhx.k dk Dyse fjdksxukbZTM fd;k x;k\ 15- vk;k oknhx.k C;kt 6 izfrkr izfro"kZ ikus ds vf /kdkjh gSa\ 16- vk;k oknhx.k dk okn vof /kdky esa gS\ 17 nknjlhAÞ 12. The plaintiffs sought amendment in the issues with the contention that Issues No. 4, 6 and 7 did not arise in this case because the Rajasthan Government by the order dated 21.05.1968 passed the order for entertaining the pension case of late Tara Chand. Issue No. 5 was also said to be not arising in the case as it was only a letter of the Accounts Officer. The plaintiffs also claimed that burden of Issues No. 8 and 9 regarding entitlement of the plaintiffs to recover the amount ought to have been placed upon the defendants because the defendants had already prepared the bills. According to the plaintiffs Issue No. 10 also did not arise and Issue No. 11 was also wrongly burdened upon them. Similarly, Issue No. 12 for pension and gratuity amount was also wrongly burdened upon the plaintiffs because this claim was already admitted. According to the plaintiffs Issue No. 13 also did not arise and burden thereof has also wrongly been placed upon the plaintiffs. Issue No. 14 was also wrongly framed because the claim of the plaintiffs was recognised as was evidenced from the certified copies of letters issued by the defendant No. 2. The plaintiffs also claimed that Issue No. 16 of limitation also did not arise because the issue was earlier decided by the Court and the said decision had been set aside in appeal and, therefore, by principles of res judicata such issue could not have been framed. This application of the plaintiffs was contested by the defendants and the Court found that by the letters under reference there was a correspondent exchanged for taking into consideration the claim made by the plaintiffs but there was no order passed by any competent authority for accepting the claim and there was a specific denial in the written statement and the issues were framed in accordance with and on the basis of the pleadings. The application was accordingly rejected. 13. It appears that another application was filed on 110.1986 under Order 11 Rules 12 and 14, CPC for discovery and production of the documents. Its reply was filed on 08.01.1987 and documents were also filed. The application was accordingly rejected. 13. It appears that another application was filed on 110.1986 under Order 11 Rules 12 and 14, CPC for discovery and production of the documents. Its reply was filed on 08.01.1987 and documents were also filed. It appears that on 08.01.1987, admission/denial was carried out and so also the trial Court proceeded to mark exhibit on the documents which had already been admitted earlier by the Counsel for the defendants and so also the documents which were admitted by the plaintiffs. Another application submitted by the plaintiffs for leading secondary evidence was allowed on 05.02.1987. 14. Thereafter, the plaintiffs examined two witnesses, namely, PW. 1 Kanti Lal, plaintiff No. 1 and PW. 2 Babu Lal Ojha who was the Office Superintendent in the Public Works Department at Sirohi. The defendants examined DW. 1 Sayar Mal Dugar who was the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Sirohi from April, 1970 to August, 1971 and DW. 2 Champat Mal Mathur who was the Executive Engineer at Sirohi from 23.08.1971 to 08.07.1974. Apart from the plaintiff , the other witnesses have been produced in proof of the documents in question. 15. The learned Additional District Judge, Sirohi, after hearing the parties, proceeded to decide the issues involved in the case by Judgment dated 212.1987. The findings recorded by the learned Judge and the basis thereof could be summarised thus: 16. Issues No. 1 to 3 related to the status, competence and capacity of the plaintiffs to maintain and prosecute the suit. These issues were not put under any serious contention by the defendants and, therefore, were decided in favour of the plaintiffs. 17. Issue No. 4 was framed on the question as to whether deceased Tara Chand was relieved by the Government of Bombay on 31.05.1950. So far relieving of Tara Chand on 31.05.1950 by the Bombay Government was concerned, this fact was never in dispute, but for the questions involved in the case, the nature of such relieving of Tara Chand was directly in question. From the plaint averments and correspondence on record it is evident that Tara Chand was relieved by the Government of Bombay on 31.05.1950 in pursuance to order No. 3036 dated 26.04.1950. From the plaint averments and correspondence on record it is evident that Tara Chand was relieved by the Government of Bombay on 31.05.1950 in pursuance to order No. 3036 dated 26.04.1950. The said order dated 26.04.1950 had a direct bearing and relevance on the questions involved in this case but for the reasons best known to the plaintiffs, despite producing various other relevant and irrelevant documents, this fundamental document was not produced on record. The learned trial Judge in those circumstances held that it was not possible to pronounce conclusively upon the nature of the order and, therefore, Issue No. 4 was decided on the inference that Shri Tara Chand was removed by the Bombay State on 31.05.1950 i.e., he was relieved from service. 18. Issue No. 10 related to the basis of the claim for salary of the period 05.02.1936 to 23.01.1948 as this hiatus in his service was asserted to have been condoned by the resolution dated 21.01.1948. With reference to the orders Exhibit-23 and Exhibit-A/3 the learned trial Judge found that in pursuance of the resolution dated 21.01.1948 it was ordered that the services of Shri Tara Chand would be deemed to be continued from 05.02.1936 and he would be entitled for the salary for the entire period upto 23.01.1948. This issue was accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiffs. 19. Issues No. 14 was framed on the question as to whether the claim of the plaintiffs was recognised? This act of recognition refers to the defendant State of Rajasthan. The learned Judge referred to the documentary evidence on record and found that the defendant State of Rajasthan accepted as correct, the claim of the plaintiffs in relation to the pension and gratuity and promised in writing to pay the dues of late Shri Tara Chand towards pension and gratuity and, therefore, a new contract would be deemed to have come into existence on the principles of Section 25(3) of the Indian Contract Act. Issue No. 14 in relation to the legally admissible pension and gratuity was decided in favour of the plaintiffs. However, in relation to other claims the learned Judge observed that there was no evidence on record by which other claims of the plaintiffs were accepted by the competent authorities of the defendant State nor the plaintiffs could point out any such direct and convincing evidence. However, in relation to other claims the learned Judge observed that there was no evidence on record by which other claims of the plaintiffs were accepted by the competent authorities of the defendant State nor the plaintiffs could point out any such direct and convincing evidence. Hence, Issue No. 14 in relation to other claims was decided against the plaintiffs. 20. Issue No. 5, 6, 7 and 8 were taken together for decision by the learned trial Judge. After comprehensively considering the entire record with reference to all the rival contentions, the learned Judge found that under the Sirohi merger agreement the services of late Shri Tara Chand were initially handed-over to the Central Government and thereafter from 25.01.1950 the services were handed over to the Bombay State. Abu area was merged in the State of Rajasthan from 011.1956 (under the State Reorganisation Act, 1956) (hereinafter referred to as `the Act of 1956). It was, therefore, incomprehensible as to how Tara Chand became the employee of the Rajasthan State? The learned Judge found that before 31.05.1950 late Tara Chand had given an option to conditionally remain with the Bombay State and to be absorbed in Rajasthan but by merely extending the option he would not become the employee of the Rajasthan State. The question was as to whether the services of Tara Chand were to be counted with the State of Rajasthan upto 31.05.1955 and he was entitled for salary from 01.06.1950 to 31.05.1955 and the learned Judge was clearly of opinion that there was no liability of the State of Rajasthan as the incumbent was already relieved by the Bombay State on 31.05.1950. 21. The learned Judge further observed that if late Shri Tara Chand or his heirs felt that he had been wrongly removed, then it was required of them to have taken appropriate proceedings particularly for declaration against the Government of Bombay or the Government of India that his relieving on 31.05.1950 by the Bombay State was invalid and, therefore, he was entitled for salary from 31.05.1950 to 31.05.1955. The learned Judge referred to the cited decision of the Honble Supreme Court in Memuna Khatoon vs. State of U.P., AIR 1980 1773 SC and found the position of law to the effect that the plaintiffs cannot claim the amount of salary till the removal order was declared void and observed that on this principle itself late Shri Tara Chand and his heirs ought to have filed firstly a suit for declaration that Tara Chand was unlawfully removed from service on 31.05.1950 and if his relieving was declared void then only it was permissible for Tara Chand or his heirs to claim the salary till 31.05.1955. It was seriously contended on behalf of the plaintiffs that under Article 8 of the Sirohi merger Agreement it was the duty of the Government of India to ensure continuance of services of late Shri Tara Chand on the conditions which ought not to have been less advantageous than those on which he was serving. It was asserted on the basis of the relevant service rules of the Sirohi State relating to pension, gratuity and retirement that a public servant would not be retired before attaining the age of 60 years or 30 years of continued service. The learned Judge referred to Rule 8, 9 and 19 of the said Rules of Sirohi State and found that ordinarily a public servant was not to be continued in service after 60 years of age and in any case he was not to be continued after attaining 65 years of age. Under Rule 9, a provision was made that an employee would not be retired before attaining the age of 60 years or completing 30 years of continuous service. But the Council was given right to relieve an employee after 15 years of continuous service by a reasoned order. The learned Judge found that late Tara Chand continued in service from 04.07.1918 to 31.05.1950 and the pension and gratuity have been claimed on this basis only. It was, therefore, clear that as on 31.05.1950 he had completed more than 31 years of service and, therefore, his relieving on 31.05.1950 by the Bombay State cannot be said to be contrary to the rules applicable in the Sirohi State nor this relieving was in any manner disadvantageous than the Rules of Sirohi State. It was, therefore, clear that as on 31.05.1950 he had completed more than 31 years of service and, therefore, his relieving on 31.05.1950 by the Bombay State cannot be said to be contrary to the rules applicable in the Sirohi State nor this relieving was in any manner disadvantageous than the Rules of Sirohi State. The learned Judge also referred to Rule 19 and found that under the said Rule if a State employee was relieved before completing 30 years of service, then he would be entitled for pension if he was not responsible for such relieving. The learned Judge was, therefore, of opinion that even under the said Rule 19 the only entitlement of Tara Chand was of receiving his pension. Issues No. 5, 6, 7 and 8 were, therefore, decided against the plaintiffs. 22. Issue No. 10 was framed on the question as to whether the break in service from 05.02.1936 to 23.01.1948 was condoned and that had already been decided in favour of the plaintiffs. Issue No. 11 related to the claim of the plaintiffs for salary payable to late Tara Chand for the said period of 05.02.1936 to 23.01.1948. The learned Judge referred to the documentary evidence on record and found that despite entering into incessant correspondence, late Shri Tara Chand till his last maintained total silence regarding this claim and, therefore, it appeared that such claim has unnecessarily been made by the plaintiffs. The learned Judge was also of opinion that even if it be held that this salary was not received by Tara Chand from Sirohi State, then also he had the claim either against Government of India or against the Government of Bombay and if Bombay State had not made the payment then, within limitation, he could have filed a suit against them but it was never shown as to how the defendant State of Rajasthan was liable for this payment? Issue No. 11 was accordingly decided against the plaintiffs. 23. A look at the issue makes it evident that Issue No. 12 incorporates the claim as put in question in Issue No. 9 also. Both these issues were decided together and after making calculation of the pension and gratuity payable, the learned trial Judge held that the pension payable to late Tara Chand for the period 01.06.1950 to 17.01.1960 came to Rs. 7,045.46 and gratuity to Rs. 3,775.80. Both these issues were decided together and after making calculation of the pension and gratuity payable, the learned trial Judge held that the pension payable to late Tara Chand for the period 01.06.1950 to 17.01.1960 came to Rs. 7,045.46 and gratuity to Rs. 3,775.80. Therefore, on Issues No. 9 and 12 it was decided that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover the amount of Rs. 10,821.26 from the defendant No. 1 State of Rajasthan. 24. Issue No. 13 was framed on the total claim of the plaintiffs and in view of the decisions on the issues No. 8 and 11 against the plaintiffs and 9 and 12 in favour of the plaintiffs, they were held entitled for Rs. 10,821.26 only. 25. The question of limitation in this case has been a vexed question on which Issue No. 16 was framed. As noticed hereinbefore, the learned trial Court in the first place framed this as a preliminary issue and held that the suit filed by the plaintiffs was hopelessly barred by limitation. Late Shri Tara Chand had admittedly been relieved as back as on 31.05.1950 and had expired on 17.01.1960. The claim whether of the dues of salary or of pension and gratuity made by way of a suit filed on 21.08.1971 was held to be beyond limitation. However, on appeal, this Court found that the question of limitation in this case was an intricate question dependent upon various facts and factors and was not such that the suit could have been dismissed in toto at its threshold. When a part of the claim was shown to have been admitted and under consideration of the State Government, out right dismissal of the suit on limitation alone was not approved. The suit was remanded for decision in accordance with law. However, the defendants were left free to agitate the question of limitation. 26. On the question of limitation as involved in Issue No. 16 it was contended on behalf of the plaintiffs that the entire claim of the plaintiffs be deemed to be relating to an amount kept in trust with the defendants and by virtue of Section 10 of the Limitation Act, the suit would not be barred by any length of time. Alternatively, it was contended that if Article 7 of the Limitation Act was applicable, then in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Memuna Khatoons case (Supra), the suit be held within limitation and that State Government should not attempt to deprive the persons of their money by resorting to the objections of limitation. The learned Judge was of opinion that there was no question of any applicability of Section 10 of the Limitation Act as it was not a suit for return of the amount kept in trust. For the arrears of salary, the suit ought to have been filed within three years as envisaged by Article 7 of the Limitation Act. The learned Judge found that regarding the amount of Rs. 10,821.26 of pension and gratuity, although the suit had earlier become barred by limitation but by the document Exhibit-1 and other documents the defendant Government has promised to make payment of the time barred pension amount also and a new contract came into existence by the proposal of the State Government dated 21.05.1968 and the plaintiffs were informed about the same by the letter dated 17.06.1968. Therefore, the suit relating to the amount of pension and gratuity was held to be within limitation and for other claims it was held to be barred by limitation. 27. Issue No. 15 related to the claim of interest. The learned Judge found that the plaintiffs have claimed interest in the plaint at the rate of 6% per annum. The learned Judge found that although the claim of the plaintiffs had gone barred by limitation but the State acting bona fide accepted the claim for pension and gratuity and there was no delay or mala fide on the part of the defendants. After referring to the delay in disposal of the suit for earlier dismissal, then pendency of the first appeal and then remand and trial, the learned Judge observed that within three months if the payment be made to the plaintiffs by the defendant No. 1 then the plaintiffs would be entitled for 6% per annum compound interest and for not making payment within three months, the plaintiffs would be entitled for future simple interest @ 15% per annum. 28. 28. Issue No. 17 of relief was decided in conformity with the findings aforesaid and, therefore, by the decree dated 212.1987 the suit was decreed for an amount of Rs. 10,821.26 against the defendant No. 1 State of Rajasthan with the stipulation that if the decretal amount be paid within three months then the plaintiffs would be paid compound interest @ 6% per annum, to be compounded annually, and if not paid within three months then the plaintiffs would be entitled for the future interest@ 15% per annum. The parties were directed to bear their own costs. 29. The plaintiffs felt aggrieved by the refusal of the part of their claim in the Judgment and decree dated 212.1987 and filed Civil First Appeal No. 31/1988 before this Court. The learned Single Judge decided the appeal by his impugned Judgment dated 211.1990. After considering the rival contentions, the learned Single Judge framed the following points for determination in the first appeal: “1. Whether the trial Court fell in error in holding that Tara Chand upon merger of erstwhile Sirohi State did not become an employee of the State of Rajasthan and became an employee of the erstwhile State of Bombay? 2. If point No. 1 is decided in favour of the appellants, whether the appellants are entitled to claim arrears of salary, pension and gratuity of Tara Chand as mentioned in Para 6 of this Judgment and the learned trial Court fell in error in rejecting this claim? 3. Whether the trial Court fell in error in holding the suit for arrears of salary etc. as time barred. 4. Whether the appellants were entitled to costs throughout with interest as claimed?” Evidently, the substance of the matter hinges on the pivotal question No. 1 as framed by the learned Single Judge. The learned Judge firstly dealt with the fact situation of the case and found after considering the evidence on record that late Tara Chand was not given posting nor was absorbed by the State of Rajasthan.