Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 2899 (RAJ)

BHAGWAN DUTT v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

2005-11-08

PRAKASH TATIA

body2005
Judgment PRAKASH TATIA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for the respondents. ( 2 ) THE appellants now legal representatives of the original plaintiff have challenged the judgment and decree passed by the appellate court dated 13th October 1999. ( 3 ) THE facts of this case are relevant because plaintiff in his life time filed the suit for injunction against the State Government and the Aryuveda Department of the State Government with the allegation that plaintiff is in government service as he was appointed by the State Government by order dated 4th June, 1951. He was appointed as part time labour, but he continued to serve till the impugned order dated 12-12-1988 was issued by the state Government directing to terminate the services of the plaintiff. The plaintiff challenged the State Governments order dated 12-12-1988 and consequential orders dated 17-12-1988 and 23-12-1988 principally on the ground that the order was passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the plaintiff and since the plaintiff is Government servant, he cannot be removed from service without assigning any reason. It appears that question of jurisdiction of civil court was not raised by the defendant-State before either trial court or first appellate court. The trial court held that the defendant-State committed serious illegality in terminating the service of the plaintiff, who was in service of the State Government. The trial court, therefore, declared the above mentioned orders illegal. However, the trial court permitted defendants to terminate the service of the plaintiff if they wishes then according to law. Though the decree was passed by the trial court in favour of the plaintiff, but the plaintiff preferred appeal for getting relief that he is entitled for consequential benefits including the benefit of enhancement of emoluments on completion of 9,18 and 27 years of service. Since that was not the plea taken by the plaintiff in the original suit, therefore, after the decree of the trial court, the plaintiff submitted an application before the appellate court under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC to amend the plaint so that plaintiff may including further reliefs. The first appellate court dismissed the plaintiffs application for amendment of the plaint by order dated 2nd April, 1999. The first appellate court dismissed the plaintiffs application for amendment of the plaint by order dated 2nd April, 1999. The first appellate court, thereafter, heardthe appeal on merit and, thereafter dismissed the appeal in view of the fact that the relief, which was claimed by the plaintiff in the suit has been granted by the trial court and the application for amendment of the plaint for further relief was dismissed by the first appellate court, therefore, no relief could have been granted to the plaintiff in appeal in addition to the relief already granted by the trial court. ( 4 ) THE appellant, therefore, preferred this appeal. ( 5 ) ACCORDING to learned counsel for the appellant, the first appellate court committed serious illegality in rejecting the plaintiffs application for amendment of the plaint. ( 6 ) I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and perused the facts of the case and the reasons given by first appellate court as well as the reasons given by the trial court. ( 7 ) IT appears from the facts mentioned by the plaintiff himself that he was appointed in the year 1951. The benefit, which plaintiff sought by way of amendment of the plaint during the pendency of the first appeal were relating to the benefits, which accrued to the plaintiff before he filed the suit in the trial court. He could have claimed those benefits, if the claim was maintainable in civil court, but for the reasons best known to him, he did not claim any benefit till the suit was decided by the trial court on 5th May, 1993 The plaintiff, thereafter, submitted application for seeking relief, which on the face of it, is a relief relating to the service benefits of alleged Government servants Therefore, the court below has not committed any illegality in rejecting the plaintiffs application for amendment of the plaint However, it may be worthwhile to mention here that the plaintiff died during the pendency of the first appeal and the trial court while deciding issue no 6 observed that for any relief relating to his emoluments etc , the plaintiff may take appropriate legal action ( 8 ) I do not find any substantial questions of law involved this appeal Hence, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed appeal dismissed.