1. The plaintiff is the appellant in this appeal. The plaintiff instituted a suit claiming an arrears of salary from April, 1954 to 17th May, 1962 at the rate of usual increments, salary and allowances alleging that the defendant wrongfully terminated his service for which he instituted a suit for a declaration that the order of termination of service was illegal and invalid and he was still continuing in service. After having obtained a decree in that suit the plaintiff instituted the present suit out of which the present suit arises for recovery of arrears of salaries and allowances.
2. The plaintiff's case, in short, is as follows:--
The plaintiff was appointed as a Cleaner in the Loco Shed, Burdwan, on 14-11-1949 and was permanently absorbed on 30-8-1951. His service was wrongfully terminated on and from 21-12-1951 on the allegation of assault on one Santa Prosad, another Cleaner of the Loco Shed. Thereafter, the plaintiff brought a suit for declaration that the order of termination of his service was illegal and after the said suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff the instant suit for recovery of salary and allowances was brought by the plaintiff.
3. The suit was contested by the defendants stating that it was barred by limitation and that the notice under Section 80 is not legal, valid and sufficient.
4. Several issues were framed in the suit which were all answered in favour of the plaintiff except the issue on the question of limitation. On this issue the trial Court held that the plaintiff's claim from May 1954 to September 1961 was barred by limitation. The trial Court therefore passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff for the remaining period as claimed in the suit. Against this decree the plaintiff has come up in appeal.
5. The only question involved in this appeal is whether a part of the claim as made by the plaintiff is barred by limitation or not. On this point, the trial Court has held that the plaintiff's claim beyond October 1961 is barred by limitation.
6. The learned Advocate for the appellant argued that Article 131 of the Limitation Act of 1908 was applicable to the present case and the appellant would, therefore, be entitled to the longer period of limitation of 12 years from the date of institution of the suit. Article 131 of the Limitation Act of 1908 is as follows:
To establish a periodically recurring right -- 12 years -- when the plaintiff is first refused to enjoyment of the right'. On the other hand, Article 102 of the Limitation Act of 1908 provides limitation for a period of 3 years arid it is as follows: 'For wages not otherwise expressly provided for by this schedule -- 3 years -- when the wages accrue due'.
Article 102 is a general article on the subject of wages and there is no other article which deals with the topic. Wages in this context must be taken to mean not merely the wages for manual labour, namely, wages of a daily labourer or artisan but it must be understood in a comprehensive sense as including the monthly remuneration of a government servant. In our view, the relevant article applicable to the present case is Article 102 of the Limitation Act, 1908. That being so, the trial Court was right in passing a decree in favour of the plaintiff in respect of a part of the claim made in the suit.
7. This appeal, therefore, fails. The judgment and decree of the trial Court are affirmed and the appeal is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case we make no order as to costs.
Sudhindra Mohan Guha, J.