STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. MULNARAYAN POPATLAL PUROHIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is filed by the original defendant - State of Gujarat.

(2.) The respondent in this appeal - deceased Mulnarayan Popatlal Purohit (original plaintiff) filed Regular Civil Suit No.389 of 1983 for declaration and permanent injunction. It was the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff was a permanent Government servant of the State and was appointed on 15.1.1951 as Surveyor and was promoted as District Surveyor on 28.2.1962, however reverted to the post of Surveyor on 6.6.1962 without any reason. It is further case of the plaintiff that about 100 juniors of the plaintiff were promoted and the promotion of the plaintiff was intentionally and prejudicially withheld. It is stated that the defendant never assigned any reason for not promoting the plaintiff nor the plaintiff was given any opportunity of hearing. Thus, the act of the defendant in not giving promotion to the plaintiff was illegal, unconstitutional, malafide and against the principles of natural justice. The plaintiff is entitled to promotion from 28.2.1962 as District Surveyor. The plaintiff has further stated that cause for the plaintiff to file the suit had arisen when he was compulsorily retired and when the suit was decreed against the challenge to the compulsory retirement on 17.9.1983 and when thereafter, the plaintiff was not given promotion.

(3.) The suit of the plaintiff was resisted by filing written statement at Exh.11, taking a specific plea that the suit was barred by law of limitation and the Court had no jurisdiction to decide the suit of the plaintiff. It is also stated in the written statement that the order of compulsory retirement was passed against the plaintiff but on account of pending appeal, the plaintiff was continued in service and he ultimately retired on 15.1.1984 taking voluntary retirement, therefore, the suit is also barred by the principle of Estoppel and laches and in such suit, the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief. It is further stated by the defendant that the plaintiff was communicated with adverse remarks in his Confidential Report and the case of the plaintiff was also considered, however, the plaintiff was not found fit for promotion. The plaintiff is thus not entitled to any relief in the suit.