MOHAMMEDI FIDA HUSSAIN GANGARDIWALA Vs. ANJUMAN I ISLAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred by the appellant-plaintiff against the judgment and order dated 31st October 1995 passed by the City Civil Court, Bombay in S.C. Suit No. 618 of 1983, whereby the trial court has dismissed the said suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff.

(2.) Short facts of the case is that after passing S.S.C. Examination in March 1958, the appellant applied for the post of accounts clerk to respondent no.2 and the appellant was appointed as an accounts clerk with effect from 1-4-1958 by respondent no.1 in its office. The appellant reported for duties on 10-4-1958 in the accounts section of respondent no.1. Thereafter he was transferred to the Store Department of respondent no.2 with effect from 1-7-1962. Thereafter with effect from 1-4-1967 he was promoted as senior clerk. On 21-11-1975 the appellant was posted as officer-in-charge (Exhibit'F'). On 10-11-1977, the appellant-plaintiff was made in-charge of Accounts Section in the institution of respondent no.2. On 6-3-1980 the appellant was temporarily posted at the Secretariat of respondent no.1 by letter (Exhibit M). Thereafter the services of the appellant-plaintiff were transferred from respondent no.2 to respondent no.1's Secretariat by letter (Exhibit W). The appellant-plaintiff objected to his transfer and he made several representations to the authorities including the State Government, because of which the relations between the appellant and the office bearers of respondent no.1 deteriorated. It reveals from the record that because of the strained relations, respondent no.1 issued a show cause notice on 4-1-1983 to the appellant-plaintiff, calling upon him as to why his services should not be terminated. The appellant-plaintiff replied to the said show-cause notice. Immediately thereafter he filed the present suit and prayed that the order dated 22-6-1982 of his transfer from respondent no.2 to respondent no.1 be declared as illegal, invalid, bad in law and not binding upon him as it is malafide. A notice of motion was taken out in the said suit for interim relief which was opposed by the respondents on the ground of jurisdiction. It further reveals from the record that in the meantime, the appellant's services were terminated on 3-2-1983 by respondent no.1. However, on an urgent application before the trial court, the defendants were restrained from taking over the charge from the appellant. On 14-3-1983 the said notice of motion was heard and rejected by the trial court on the ground that the School Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain, try and dispose of appeal which is required to be filed by the appellant against his termination order. It also reveals from the record that, therefore, keeping the said suit pending, the appellant-plaintiff approached the School Tribunal, Bombay, by filing appeal, being BOM 17/83 on 11-4-1983. The School Tribunal allowed the said appeal by its judgment and order dated 3-3-1984, directing the respondents to hold fresh enquiry prior to terminating the services of the appellant. It reveals from the record that respondent no.1 preferred a writ petition, being Writ Petition No.1846 of 1984, in this court but the said petition came to be summarily rejected by this Court on 23-4-1984. It also reveals from the record that respondent no.1 preferred a special leave petition, being Special Leave Petition No. 9606 of 1984, before the Supreme Court but the said petition also came to be dismissed as not pressed by order dated 10-12-1984. It reveals from the record that in the meanwhile, the appellant preferred an application, being Misc. Civil Application No.2 of 1984, before the School Tribunal for enforcement of the order dated 3-3-1984 passed by it but the said application came to be rejected by the School Tribunal on 19-1-1985. Against this rejection, the appellant preferred a writ petition, being Writ Petition No.980 of 1995 in this Court which was heard and disposed of on 4-9-1986 by this Court, directing respondent nos.1 and 2 to forthwith reinstate the appellant to the post which he was holding and further directing the said respondents to pay arrears of his salary within a period of six weeks from the date of the said order. It further reveals from the record that despite the aforesaid directions, respondent nos.1 and 2 did not comply therewith and, therefore the appellant preferred a contempt petition, being Contempt Petition No.60 of 1986, in this Court in which directions were given to the parties to seek clarification from the earlier Bench which finally decided the writ petition and accordingly the parties sought clarification from the earlier Bench which on 23-4-1987 gave a clarification to the effect that if the appellant is reinstated in the institution to which he had been transferred, he is at liberty to agitate the validity of his transfer before the Court. It further reveals from the record that thereafter on 29-4-1987 the appellant was reinstated in the office of respondent no.1's Secretariat. It further reveals from the record that pending the aforesaid suit, the appellant on superannuation retired on 9-11-1992. Thereafter, the appellant amended the plaint in his suit and prayed for pensionary benefits admissible to him under the Government Rules and Regulations. The trial Court framed as many as nine issues, out of which issue nos. 2, 3 and 8 are the relevant issues require to be considered in this appeal. They are as follows:-

(3.) The trial Court answered issued no.2 in the affirmative, issue no.3 in the negative and issue no.8 also in the negative. The trial Court by the impugned order dated 30th and 31st October 1995 dismissed the suit filed by the appellant. Hence this first appeal.