Summarize the following court judgment. Appeal No. 149 of 1958. 1149 Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated September 2	 1957	 of the Allahabad High Court in First Appeal No. 474 of 1956	 arising out of the judgment and order dated July 30	 1956	 of the First Additional Civil Judge	 Kanpur	 in Civil Suit No. 257 of 1953. Appellant in person. C. B. Gupta	 0. C. Mathur and C. P. Lal	 for respondent No.1. G. C. Mathur and C. P. Lal	 for respondent No. 4. 1958. August 19. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BHAGWATI J. This appeal with special leave under article 136 of the Constitution raises an interesting question of limitation. The appellant was appointed an Overseer by the Municipal Board	 Kanpur	 on March 5	 1937	 with the approval of the Superintending Engineer	 Public Health Department	 Lucknow. He was confirmed by the Board 's special resolution dated July 2	 1938	 and continued in employ up to March 19	 1951	 when a copy of the resolution No. 1723 passed by the Board on March 5	 1951	 purporting to dismiss him from employ was handed over to him. Against the said resolution dated March 5	 1951	 the appellant filed an appeal to the Uttar Pradesh Government on April 7	 1951	 but was informed by a G. 0. dated April 7	 1952	 that his appeal had been rejected. This information was received by him on April 8	 1952. Thereafter on December 8	1952	 the appellant filed the suit out of which the present appeal arises	 being Suit No. 257 of 1953 in the Court of the Additional Civil Judge	 Kanpur	 impleading the Municipal Board	 Kanpur	 Shri section B. Gupta	 Municipal Engineer	 Shri Brahmanand Misra	 the then Chairman of the Municipal Board and the Government of Uttar Pradesh as defendants and challenged the legality of the dismissal order passed against him on the ground that the previous approval of the Superintending Engineer	 Public Health Department was not taken as required by the rules	 that the 1150 appellant was denied an opportunity of being heard in person by the Board	 that no show cause notice for the proposed punishment of dismissal was issued to him by the Board nor were the charges framed by it	 that the dismissal order did not specify the charges	 that some of the grounds on which he was dismissed did not form the subject matter of the charges at all	 that in any case	 the charges framed were false and malicious. The appellant prayed for a declaration that the order of his dismissal was ultra vires	 illegal and void and claimed a total amount of Rs. 10	951 in respect of damages	 allowances for doing officiating work	 bonus	 arrears of salary and provident fund. The suit was contested mainly by the Board and its defence was to the effect that the order of dismissal was not vitiated on the grounds of illegality or irregularity and in any case the suit was barred by limitation. The trial court found: (a)that the appellant 's substantive appointment was that of an Overseer and not that of a Drainage Overseer as claimed and the approval of the Superintending Engineer	 Public Health Department	 Lucknow	 for his dismissal was not necessary; (b)that the order of dismissal of the appellant was ultra vires on the ground that he was not given an opportunity of being personally heard by the Board; (c) that no notice to show cause against the proposed punishment was issued by the Board; (d)that the order of dismissal was based on certain grounds which were not the suubject matter of the charge and that the Chairman of the Board was not competent to try the appellant; but (e)that the suit of the appellant was barred by limitation. The trial court accordingly dismissed the suit with costs. The appellant carried an appeal. being First Appeal .No. 474 of 1956 before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and contended that the suit filed by him against the Board was within limitation. The appellant relied upon the provisions of section 326 of the U. P. Municipalities Act (U. P. 11 of 1916) (hereinafter 1151 referred to as "the Act") and contended that the period of six months contemplated by sub section (3) of section 326 plus the period of two months required for giving notice for filing the suit against the Board under sub section (1) of section 326	 that is	 8 months should be computed from April 8	 1952	 on which date the order of the dismissal of his appeal by the U. P. Government was communicated to him and not from March 5	 1951	 when the order of his dismissal by the Board was passed or March 19	1951	 when that order of dismissal was communicated to him by the Board. The High Court was of opinion that the Resolution dated March 5	 1951	 passed by the Board took effect immediately as it was an order which was complete and effective by itself and its operation was not postponed for any further period nor was its effect suspended until the State Government had passed orders in appeal. It accordingly came to the conclusion that the appellant 's suit was barred by limitation under section 326 of the Act. In view of the said finding the High Court did not go into any other questions at issue between the parties but dismissed the appeal with costs. An application filed by the appellant for a certificate for leave to appeal to this Court proved infructuous	 with the result that the appellant applied for and obtained from this Court special leave to appeal against this judgment of the High Court. The only question that arises for our determination in this appeal is whether the appellant 's suit was barred by limitation	 because if that is determined against the appellant it will be conclusive of this appeal. Section 326 of the Act runs as under: " 326(1) No suit shall be instituted against a Board	 or against a member	 officer or servant of a board in respect of an act done or purporting to have been done in its or his official capacity	 until the expiration of the two months next after notice in writing has been	 in the case of a Board	 left at its office	 and in the case of a member	 officer or servant	 delivered to him or left at his office or place of abode	 1152 explicitly stating the cause of action	 the nature of the relief sought	 the amount of compensation claimed and the name and place of abode of the intending plaintiff and the plaint shall contain a statement that such notice has been so delivered or left. (3) No action such as is described in sub section (1) shall	 unless it is an action for the recovery of immoveable property or for a declaration of title thereto	 be commenced otherwise than within six months next after the accrual of the cause of action. Prima facie the period of six months provided in section 326(3) above would commence to run after the accrual of the cause of action and the cause of action on which the appellant came before the Court was his wrongful dismissal from employ by the Board. Even the extension of this period by two months	 the requisite period of the notice under section 326(1) would not save the appellant from the bar of limitation because be instituted his suit more than eight months after the Resolution dated March 5	 1951	 dismissing him from employ was communicated to him. The appellant	 therefore	 particularly relied upon the provisions of section 58(1) and (2) of the Act and urged that the cause of action accrued to him on April 8	 1952	 when the order of dismissal of his appeal by the U. P. Government was communicated to him and the suit which he had filed on December 8	 1952	 was therefore within time. Section 69 of the Act which applied to the appellant read as under: " A board may	 by special resolution	 punish or dismiss any officer appointed under section 68 subject to the conditions prescribed in section 58 in respect of the punishment or dismissal of an Executive Officer	 and Section 58(1) and (2) provide:  section 58(1): A board may punish	 dismiss or remove its Executive Officer by a special resolution supported by not less than 2/3rd members constituting the board	 subject to his right of appeal to the State Government 1153 within 30 days of the communication to him of the	 order of punishment or dismissal. (2):The State Government may suspend the Executive Officer pending the decision of ail appeal under sub section (1) and may allow	 disallow or vary the order of the Board. " It was argued by the appellant on the strength of these provisions that the special resolution passed by the Board was subject to his right of appeal to the State Government within 30 days of the communication thereof to him and in the event of his filing an appeal against the same within the period specified	 the resolution was kept in abeyance and did not come into operation until the decision of the appeal by tile State Government. If that was so	 lie contended	 his wrongful dismissal by the Board became operative as from the date when the decision of the State Government was communicated to him and that was the date on which the cause of action in regard to his wrongful dismissal accrued to him	 with the result that the suit filed by him within 8 months of such communication (including the period of 2 months ' notice) was well within time. He also supported this position by relying upon the provisions of section 58(2) which empowered the State Government to suspend an employee pending the decision of the appeal	 contending that such power vested in the State Government posited that the order of dismissal every though validly passed in accordance with the conditions specified in section 58(1) was not to become effective until such decision was reached	 because only in such event the State Government would be in a position to pass an order of suspension pending the decision of the appeal. If the order of dismissal passed by the Board was to come into effect immediately on such special resolution being passed	 there would be no meaning in the State Government being empowered to suspend the officer who had been already dismissed and the provision in that behalf would then be nugatory. It was	 therefore	 argued that such power vested in the State Government necessarily involved the consequence that the order of dismissal could not be operative by its 1154 own force but would continue in abeyance until the decision of the appeal	 once an appeal was filed by the employee against the order within the period specified. On a plain reading of the provisions of section 58(1) and (2)	 we are of opinion that this contention of the appellant is not tenable. One condition of the validity of the order of dismissal made by the Board is that the special resolution in that behalf should be supported by not less than 2/3rd members constituting the Board. Once that condition is fulfilled. there is nothing more to be done by the Board and the only right which then accrues to the officer thus dealt with by the Board is to appeal to the State Government within 30 days of the communication of that order to him. He may choose to exercise this right of appeal or without adopting that procedure he may straightaway challenge the validity of the resolution on any of the grounds available to him in law	 e.g.	 the non observance of the principles of natural justice and the like. There is nothing in the provisions of section 58(1) to prevent him from doing so and if without exercising this right of appeal which is given to him by the statute he filed a suit in the Civil Court to establish the ultra vires or the illegal character of such resolution it could not be urged that such a suit was premature	 he not having exhausted the remedies given to him under the statute. The principle that the superior courts may not in their discretion issue the prerogative writs unless the applicant has exhausted all his remedies under the special Act does not apply to a suit. There is nothing in section 58(1) which expressly or impliedly bars his right of suit. The provisions contained in section 58(2) above would also not help him for the simple reason that the power which is vested in the State Government of suspending an employee pending the decision of the appeal can hardly be said to be a condition of the order of the Board. In any event	 that power is given to the State Government for giving relief to the employee who has thus appealed	 against the rigour of the order of dismissal passed by the Board against him. The employee may have been dismissed by the 1155 Board	 in which case on looking at the prima facie aspect of the matter the State Government may as well come to the conclusion that the operation of the order of dismissal may be stayed and he be suspended instead	 thus entitling him to subsistence allowance during the pendency of the appeal. If the appeal is eventually dismissed the order of dismmissal by the Board will stand; if the appeal is allowed he will be entitled to continue in the employ and enjoy all the benefits and privileges of such employment	 but lie would not have to starve during the period that the appeal was pending before the State Government. The provisions of section 58(2) have to be read along with those of section 58(1) and it cannot be urged that the power of suspension vested in the State Government is to be exercised in any other case except that of dismissal or removal of the employee by the Board. In the case of any other punishment an order of suspension passed by the State Government pending the decision of the appeal would only mean that during the pendency of the appeal the State Government is empowered to visit on him a higher punishment than what has been meted out to him already by the Board. Such an absurd position could never have been thought of by the legislature and the only way in which section 58(1) can be read consistently with section 58(2) is to construe this power of suspension vested in the State Government to apply only to those cases where a higher punishment than suspension has been meted out by Board to the employee. Section 58(2) merely prescribes the powers which the State Government may exercise in the matter of the appeal which has been filed by the employee against the order of the Board. The mere filing of an appeal has not the effect of holding the order of the Board in abeyance or postponing the effect thereof until the decision of the appeal. Such a construction would on the other hand involve that even though a special resolution was passed by the Board dismissing or removing the employee he would continue to function as such and draw his salary pending the decision of his appeal	 once he filed an appeal to the	 State Government as prescribed. We do not see any words in 147 1156 section 58(1) and (2 which would suspend the operation of the order passed by the Board or render it ineffective by reason of the filing or the pendency of the appeal. As a matter of fact the legislature in section 61(3) of the very same Act while dealing with the right of appeal from the order 	 of the executive officer has expressly provided for such a contingency and enacted that when an appeal was filed within the specified period the order would remain suspended until the appeal was decided. A comparison of the provisions of section 58(1) and section 61(3) of the Act is thus sufficient) to show that no such consequence was intended by the legislature when it enacted section 58(1) of the Act. A similar provision enacted in the proviso to section 71 of the U. P. District Boards Act (U. P. X of 1922) may also be referred to in this context. While dealing with the powers of dismissal or punishment of a Secretary or Superintendent of education by the Board the legislature enacted a proviso thereto that the Secretary or the Superintendent of education of a Board	 as the case may be	 shall have a right of appeal to the State Government against such resolution within one month from the date of the communication of the resolution to him	 and that the resolution shall not take effect until the period of one month has expired or until the State Government has passed orders on any appeal preferred by him. The absence of any such provision in section 58 of the Act also goes to show that no such consequence was intended by the legislature. The enactment of section 58(1) in the manner in which it has been done giving to the employee only a right of appeal to the State Government within 30 days of the communication to him of the order of the Board without anything more is enough to show that neither was the suspension of the order nor the postponement of the effect thereof as a result of the filing of an appeal ever in the contemplation of the legislature. It may be noted in passing that the appellant relied upon a decision of the Allahabad High Court in Dist. Board	 Shahjahanpur vs Kailashi Nath (1)	 which turned on the construction of section 71 of the U.P. District (1) A I.R. 1948 All. 1157 Boards Act set out above in support of his contention. The provisions of that section	 however	 are quite distinct from those of section 58(1) of the Act before us and this case was rightly distinguished by the High Court in the judgment appealed against inasmuch as by the express terms of section 71 under consideration there	 the dismissal was not to take effect until the period of one month had expired or until the State Government had passed orders on any appeal preferred by the employee. It is	 therefore	 clear that even though the order passed by the Board was subject to the right of appeal given to the employee in the manner aforesaid	 the operation of the order was not suspended nor was its effect in any manner postponed till a later date by the mere filing of the appeal and it became effective from the date when it was communicated to the employee. The cause of action	 if any	 accrued to the employee on the date of such comunication and the period of limitation commenced to run from that date. If this is the true position on a plain construction of the provisions of section 58(1) and (2) of the Act what is the other principle which the appellant can call to his aid in order to support his contention ? He tried to equate the special resolution passed by the Board with a decree passed by a trial court and the decision of the appeal by the State Government with a decree passed by an appellate court and urged that in the same manner as a decree of the trial court became merged in the decree passed by the appellate court and no decree of the trial court thereafter survived	 the decision of the appeal by the State Government replaced the special resolution passed by the Board and such decision if adverse to him gave him a cause of action and the period of limitation commenced to run against him only from the date of such decree. The argument was that even though the cause of action in respect of such wrongful dismissal arose on the date when the order of the Board was communicated to him	 once an appeal was filed by him against that order within the period prescribed that cause of action was suspended and became merged in the cause of action which 1158 would accrue to him on the decision of his appeal by the State Government. The special resolution of the Board would then merge into the decision of the State Government on appeal and the only thing which then survived would be the decision of the State Government on which either there would be a resuscitation or revival of the cause of action which had accrued to him on the communication of the order of the Board or the accrual of a fresh cause of action which could be ventilated by him within the period of limitation commencing therefrom. The initial difficulty in the way of the appellant	 however	 is that departmental enquiries even though they culminate in decisions on appeals or revision cannot be equated with proceedings before the regular courts of law. As was observed by this Court in State of Uttar Pradesh vs Mohammad Nooh (1): ". . an order of dismissal passed on a departmental enquiry by an officer in the department and an order passed by another officer next higher in rank dismissing an appeal therefrom and an order rejecting an application for revision by the head of the department ( an hardly be equated with any propriety with decrees made in a civil suit under the Code of Civil Procedure by the court of first instance and the decree dismissing the appeal therefrom by an appeal court and the order dismissing the revision petition by a yet higher court. . . because the departmental tribunals of the first instance or on appeal or revision are not regular courts manned by persons trained in law although they may have the trappings of the courts of law. The analogy of the decisions of the courts of law would therefore be hardly available to the appellant. Our attention was drawn in this connection to cases arising tinder section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure which have held that the period of limitation is to be calculated from the date of the original decree which gave rise to the right of restitution and not from the date of the decision of the last appeal which was filed (1) ; 1159 against it. Reliance was placed on the following observations of B. K. Mukherjea J. (as he then was) in Bhabarajan Das vs Nibaran Chandra (1): " The question therefore that really falls for determination is as to whether the time for such an application ought to be calculated from the date of the decision of the last appeal	 or from the decree which for the first time gave the appellant a right to apply for restitution. It is conceded by the learned Advocate for the appellant that lie had undoubtedly the right to pray for restitution at the time when the judgment was passed by the Munsif. His contention is that it was not necessary for him to apply at the first opportunity as there was an appeal taken against that decision of the trial judge and lie could wait till the judgment of the Appellate Court was pronounced. After the Appellate Court had passed its decision the decree of the trial court would no longer be in existence and lie would be entitled to base his rights to get restitution on the Appellate Court 's decree. I find myself unable to accept this contention as tenable. If the right to apply for restitution was available to the appellant as soon as the first court passed its judgment	 time would certainly begin to run from that date under article 181 and the mere fact that the judgment was challenged by way of an appeal which might eventually set it aside	 does not	 in lily opinion	 operate to suspend the running of time. Nor would the appellate Courts decree into which the decree of the trial Court would undoubtedly merge give the party a fresh starting point for limitation. The analogy. of the decree of the trial court merging into a decree of the appeal court clearly does not apply to these cases. The observations of Rankin C.T. in Hari Mohan vs Parameshwar Shau (1) are also in point. the learned Chief Justice at " But the application to be made under section 144 is an application which must be made to the Court of the first instance whether the decree varied or reversed was passed by that Court or a higher Court. (1) A.I.R. 1939 Cal. 349	 35. (2) Cal. 61 78. 1160 That Court has to determine whether the applicant is entitled to any and what benefits	 by way of restitution or otherwise	 by reason of the decree of the appellate court varying or reversing a previous decree. We have to determine this case under article 181	 of the Limitation Act	 which directs us	 in general language	 to find out the date on which the applicant 's right accrued. In the ordinary and natural meaning of the words	 their right accrued immediately the District Judge reversed the decision of the trial court	 and reduced the amount of the plaintiff 's claim. Unless	 therefore	 we are required by reason of the nature of the matter to ignore the effect of that decision	 because it was confirmed on appeal	 it seems to me to be wrong to do so. To refuse so to do does not involve the proposition that two decrees for the same thing may be executed simultaneously. Nor does it involve	 so far as I can see	 the affirmance of any other proposition that can be regarded as inconvenient or absurd. Further	 when even if the analogy applies	 where the decree of the appeal court only affirms the decree of the trial court	 this Court has held in the State Of U. P. vs Mohd. Noolt (1)	 that the original decree of the trial court remains operative. This Court has said at p. 611 : " In the next place	 while it is true that a decree of a court of first instance may be said to merge in the decree passed on appeal therefrom or even in the order passed in revision	 it does so only for certain purposes	 namely	 for the purposes of computing the period of Limitation for execution of the decree as in Batuk	 Nath vs Munni Dei (2)	 or for computing the period of limitation for an application for final decree in a mortgage suit as in Jowad Hussain vs Gendait Singh (3). But as pointed by Sir Lawrence Jenkins in delivering the judgment of the Privy Council in Juscurn Boid vs Pirthichand Lal (4)	 whatever be the theory under other systems of law	 under the Indian law and procedure an original decree is not suspended (1) ; (2) 41 I.A. 104. (3) 53 1. A. 197. (4) 46 I.A. 52. 1161 by the presentation of an appeal nor is its operation interrupted where the decree on appeal is merely one of dismissal. There is nothing in the Indian law to warrant the suggestion that the decree or order of the court or tribunal of the first instance becomes final only on the termination of all proceedings by way of appeal or revision. The filing of the appeal or revision may put the decree or order in jeopardy but until it is reversed or modified it remains effective. " The original decree being thus operative what we are really concerned with is the commencement of the period of limitation as prescribed in the relevant statuite and if the statute prescribes that it commences from the (late of the accrual of the cause of action there is no getting behind these words in spite of the apparent iniquity of applying the same. As was pointed out by Seshagiri Ayyar J. in Mathu Korakkai Chetty vs Madar Ammal (1): " Therefore in my opinion	 the true rule deducible from these various decisions of the Judicial Committee is this: that subject to the exemptions	 exclusion	 mode of computationalid. the excusing of delay	 etc.	 which are provided in the Limitation Act	 the language of the third column of the first schedule should be 	go interpreted as to carry out the true intention of the legislature that is to say	 by dating the cause of action from a date when the remedy is available to the party. " The cause of action in the present case accrued to the appellant the moment the resolution of the Board was communicated to him and that was the date of the commencement of the limitation. The remedy	 if any	 by way of filing a suit against the Board in respect of his wrongful dismissal was available to him from that date and it was open to him to pursue that remedy within the period of limitation prescribed under section 326 of the Act. The result is no doubt unfortunate for the appellant	 because the trial court found in his favour in regard to his plea of wrongful dismissal. If he had only brought the suit within the period prescribed by section 326 of the (I) Mad. 185	 213. 1162 Act	 he might possibly have got some relief from the Court. He however chose to wait till the decision of the State Government on his appeal and overstepped the limit of time to his own detriment. We are unable to come to any other conclusion than the one reached above and the appeal must	 therefore	 stand dismissed; but in the peculiar circumstances of the case	 we make no order " to costs. The appellant was given leave to proceed as a pauper and he prosecuted this appeal in form a pauperis . section lie has failed in the appeal and we do order that he shall pay the court fee which would have been paid by him if he had not been permitted to appeal as a pauper. The Registrar shall send to the AttorneyGeneral for India a memorandum of the court fees payable by him as required by Or. XIV	 r. 12	 of the Supreme Court Rules. Appeal dismissed.

The appellant was appointed as overseer by the Municipal Board	 Kanpur	 on March 5	 1937	 and continued in its service up to March 19	 1951	 when a copy of the resolution passed by the Board on March 5	 1951	 purporting to dismiss him from service was handed over to him. On April 7	 1951	 he filed an appeal to the Government against the order of dismissal from service	 but he was informed on April 8	 1952	 that his appeal was rejected. Thereafter on December 8	 1952	 the appellant instituted a suit challenging the legality of the order of dismissal on various grounds	 and the question arose whether the suit was within time. Sub section (I) Of section 326 of the U. P. Municipalities Act	 1916	 provided that no suit shall be instituted against a Municipal Board " until the expiration of the two months next after notice in writing has been left at the office of the Board. explicitly stating the cause of action " ; and sub section (3) stated that " no action such as is described in sub section (1) shall. be commenced otherwise than within six months next after the accrual of the cause of action ". The appellant contended that the cause of action accrued to him on April 8	 1952	 when the order of dismissal of his appeal to the Government was communicated to him and the suit	 filed within eight months of that date	 was within time	 and relied on the provisions of section 58 (1) and (2)	 read with section 69	 of the Act	 which gave an officer dismissed by the Board a right of appeal to the Government within 30 days of the communication to him of the order dismissal : Held	 that though the order passed by the Board on March 5	 1951	 was subject to a right of appeal to the Government	 the operation of the order was not suspended by the mere filing of the appeal	 and the order became effective from March 19	 1951	 when it was communicated to the appellant. The cause of action	 therefore	 accrued to him on that date	 and the suit filed by him on December 8	 1952	 was barred by limitation under section 326 of the U. P. Municipalities Act	 1916.