1978 INSC 0356
                                                   K. S. Upadhaya

                                                           Vs

                                                   State of Gujarat

                                       Civil Appeal No. 2683 (N) of 1977

                             (V. R. Krishna Iyer, Jaswant Singh, A. D. Koshal JJ)

                                                      29.11.1978

                                                     JUDGMENT

KRISHNA IYER J.

1. This appeal which has come up by special leave is of such a small dimension that after a
preliminary explanation of the case and a consideration of the relevant calendar of events, we
thought that a just order would be as we propose to make below.

2. We put the suggestions to counsel on both sides and they agreed that it was fair in the
circumstances of the case. But, instead of resting it on consent of parties, we pass the following
order because we consider that it comports with law and justice in this case.

3. The appellant was a Police Sub-Inspector in the State of Junagadh long year ago where he was
later confirmed. However, when he was absorbed into the regular service in the State of Saurashtra,
he was admittedly treated as a temporary and officiating Police Sub-Inspector. While so functioning,
he was reverted to the post of Head Constable, Ist Grade by the Inspector General of Police. The
appellant filed a suit after 18 years of his reversion, got a decree declaring that the reversion was
void together with a decree for difference in salary and allowances for three years and two months.
However, when the matter was carried in appeal to the High Court of Gujarat, it was held, that the
suit was barred by limitation and without pronouncing on any of the other findings, especially one
by which the reversion was held to be void, the High Court allowed the appeal.

4. The real questions before us are as to whether the reversion order was in violation of Article 311
of the Constitution and whether the suit is in time. The fact remains that the appellant was later
promoted as a Police Sub-Inspector and has, by now, retired from service altogether. The result is
that the dispute centres round a monetary claim of small dimension. It is this background which has
persuaded us to pass the order which will work out substantial justice between the parties.

5. We direct the respondent-State to pay to the appellant a sum which will be the difference between
the salary and allowances drawn by him as Head Constable Grade I and the salary and allowances
payable to him as Police Sub-Inspector at the starting point of the scale (subject, of course, to
revisions of scales of pay, but not to any increments for service) from the date of his reversion to the
date on which he was promoted again as Police Sub-Inspector. The State will also pay interest at 12
per cent per annum on the aforesaid sum from the date of the suit to the date of the payment. This
sum will be paid within three months from today. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated
above, but there will be no order as to costs.
</html