Case Note & Summary
This case arose from a claim for salary arrears by an employee who alleged he had worked in the office of the Municipal Council, Tonk, and was denied salary for the period from September 10, 1987 to August 18, 1988. He initially sought relief by filing a writ petition in the High Court in February 1990. The learned single Judge of the High Court held that the claim was recoverable in a civil action and declined to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, dismissing the writ petition. The Division Bench confirmed the dismissal on May 6, 1996, in Special Appeal No.218/96. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court by special leave petition. By the time the matter reached the Supreme Court, the limitation period for filing a civil suit had expired, though it had not expired when the writ petition was originally filed. The core legal issue was whether time spent in High Court proceedings should be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, for purposes of filing a civil suit, and whether the High Court's refusal to entertain the writ was proper. The petitioner contended denial of salary and sought payment, while the High Court had held that an alternative remedy of civil suit was available. The Supreme Court observed that exercise of power under Article 226 is discretionary, and it was not necessary to examine the legality of the High Court's refusal. Since the High Court expressly declined relief and relegated the petitioner to a civil suit, the petitioner could not be left without a remedy. The Court referred to Section 14 of the Limitation Act, which allows exclusion of time in certain proceedings. Normally, Section 14 requires that the earlier court lacked jurisdiction or other cause of like nature. Here, the High Court's relegation to a civil suit constituted a cause of like nature. The Court held that the entire time taken in the High Court from the date of institution of the writ petition, and the time in the Supreme Court pursued diligently and bona fide, must be excluded. Consequently, the petitioner was permitted to issue notice to the Municipality within four weeks and file a suit within two months thereafter. The trial Court was directed to consider and dispose of the matter on merits. The special leave petition was disposed of accordingly, effectively allowing the petitioner to file a civil suit despite limitation having run, by excluding time spent in writ proceedings.
Headnote
A) Limitation Law - Exclusion of Time in Bona Fide Proceedings - Section 14 of Limitation Act, 1963 - Where High Court declined discretionary relief under Article 226 and relegated petitioner to civil suit, time spent in prosecuting writ proceedings diligently and bona fide must be excluded to prevent remedilessness - Held, civil Court is required to exclude entire time taken by High Court from date of institution of writ petition (Paras not mentioned). B) Constitutional Law - Discretionary Jurisdiction under Article 226 - Constitution of India, Article 226 - Exercise of power under Article 226 is discretionary; High Court may decline relief where claim is recoverable in civil action - Held, no fault found with High Court's refusal to exercise discretion, but petitioner allowed to pursue civil suit with limitation benefit (Paras not mentioned).
Issue of Consideration
Whether time spent in writ proceedings before High Court and Supreme Court should be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 when High Court declined to entertain salary arrears claim and relegated petitioner to civil suit.
Final Decision
Special leave petition disposed of; petitioner permitted to issue notice to Municipality within four weeks from date of order and file suit within two months thereafter; trial Court to consider and dispose of suit on merits; time spent in High Court and Supreme Court proceedings to be excluded under Section 14 of Limitation Act, 1963.
Law Points
- Article 226 discretionary jurisdiction
- Section 14 Limitation Act exclusion
- bona fide prosecution
- civil suit alternative remedy
- no remedylessness
