Vakil, J. - (1.) First Appeal No. 224 of 1963 was filed the State of Gujarat against the decree passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division at Broach in Special Civil Suit No. 1 of 1962 on 5-11-1962. When this appeal was put on board final hearing, the appellant filed Civil Application No. 114 of 1964 on the 22nd of January stating for reasons mentioned therein the State of Maharashtra was a necessary party to the proceeding and that, therefore, it be joined as a party and the State of Gujarat be allowed to raise a question about the liability of the State of Maharashtra in this First Appeal No. 224 of 1963. Having regard to the facts of the case which we shall presently state, it will be convenient to deal with and dispose of both these matters by a common object. The plaintiff-respondent joined service of the then Government of Bombay as a Clerk in the Revenue Department in the year 1926. Later on he was taken up as Aval Karkun. There is a dispute as to when he was confirmed, but that has no bearing on the questions that arise before us for decision. In 1948 he was promoted to the post of Mahalkari. In the same year on the 3rd of May 1948 he was appointed on the officiating Mamlatdar. On 7th September 1950 his lien on the Mahalkaris's post was suspended on the ground that he was not likely to be revert within three years of his appointment as the officiating Mamlatdar. Then on the 19th of March 1952 an order was received by the plaintiff reverting him as an Aval Karkun in the District establishement. The plaintiff thereupon on 26th March 1952 wrote to the Collector to let him know the reasons for his reversion. On 29th March 1952 the Collector replied saying that he did not know the cause. The plaintiff then sent an application to the Government in April 1952 in reply to that application the Collector sent a memo stating that with reference to his application to the Government, he is to be informed that under orders of Government on the basis of his unsatisfactory record Government considered that he was not fit for being continued as a Mamlatdar. Thereafter the plaintiff made representations to the Government and also applied to the Ministerin- charge. In August 1952,however, he received the reply that Government saw no reason to reconsider his case and revise the decision. In July the plaintiff wrote a latter to the Collector to communicate to him any adverse remarks that may have been made against him during his service. It may be noted that it was the case of the plaintiff that he had never been communicated any adverse remarks. On 17th September 1953 these remarks were sent to him which were of the years 1945, 1946, 1948 and 1950.in August the plaintiff requested the Collector to appoint him as a Mahalkari for which he was due in accordance with his seniority as a vacancy had covered. The Collector, however, replied that he could not be so appointed. The plaintiff then filed the suit on 16th June 1958 being Regular Civil Suit No., 116 of 1958 against the State of Bombay in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division at Broach.
(2.) In the suit as originally filed the plaintiff had mainly asked for two reliefs: (1) declaration that the order of the Government dated 19th March 1952 reverting him was illegal, without jurisdiction and null and void and that he had continued on the post of the officiating in the same way as before: (ii) a decree for Rs. 4120/- as the difference in pay for the three years preceding the date of the suit. The main contentions that were raised by him in the suit were that: (a) The order dated 19th March 1952 reverting him to the District establishment amounted to reduction in rank. (b) He having acted as officiating Mamlatdar for more three years he had acquired a right to hold that post. (c) He was not given any notice to show cause before passing the impugned order and, therefore the said order offended against the provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution and as such was void and ineffective. He was, therefore, continuing to be Mamlatdar and was entitled to recover the difference in pay. (d) He also alleged that the order reverting him was made by way of punishment and, therefore, also it amounted to reduction in rank.
(3.) The Government of the State of Bombay as the defendant in the said suit had put in its written statement and contended inter alia that the plaintiff's version form the post of the Mamlatdar to the District establishment did not amount to reduction in rank because he was serving as a Mamlatdar only on an officiating basis. It was, therefore, not necessary to give to the plaintiff any show cause notice or hold an inquiry before passing the said order. I was denied that the order was made byway of penalty or punishment. It was the Government's case that the said order even did not affect his future chances of promotion and, therefore, the order is not void or illegal. It further contended that the suit of the plaintiff is time- barred.;