STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. BHAISHANKAR AVALRAM JOSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave arises out of the suit filed by Bhaishankar Avalram Joshi, hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff, for a declaration that the order of dismissal, dated February 2/4, 1955, passed by the Inspector General of Prisons, Saurashtra, was illegal and void on the ground that it contravened the provisions of art. 311(2) of the Constitution. The plaintiff also prayed for a decree for Rs. 2, 690/- being arrears of his pay from April 1, 1954 to May 7, 1956.

(2.) The plaintiff failed before the Civil Judge, Rajkot, but on appeal succeeded before the District Judge, Central Saurashtra, inasmuch as he declared the order dated February 2/4, 1955, illegal and void. The plaintiff appealed to the High Court claiming arrears of salary and the State of Bombay filed cross-objections praying that the suit be dismissed. The second appeal was heard by the High Court of Gujarat (Miabhoy J.) who directed that the decree passed by the lower appellate Court "be varied so as to show that the appellant (plaintiff) continued to be in Government service till the date of the suit only and there will be a decree for Rs. 2,690/- being arrears of pay due to the appellant (plaintiff) upto the date of the suit. There will be a further provision in the decree that the liability arising out of the declaration that the appellant is in Government service is the liability of the State of Gujarat and that the liability for the payment of the arrears of pay is the liability of the State of Maharashtra." The State of Maharashtra filed an application for leave to appeal under the Letters Patent but this was dismissed. The appeal is now before us.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant, the State of Maharashtra, contends, first, that the High Court erred in holding that there had been a breach of art. 311(2) of the Constitution, as, according to him, there was no duty to supply a copy of the report of the enquiry held against the plaintiff. Secondly he contends that the High Court erred in fastening the liability in respect of the arrears of pay on the State of Maharashtra.