S D JOSHI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As far back as on 26.9.1984, this Court had ordered that the operation of the impugned order dated 26.3.1984 be stayed till the disposal of the writ petition. Admittedly, the petitioner has served with the Respondent-NBCC for almost a quarter of a century. After 1989, the case was taken up on 8.4.2004, on which date it was dismissed because of the non- appearance of any person on behalf of the petitioner. The Respondents were also absent

(2.) I have briefly narrated the annals of the litigation because it leaves no possibility for doubt that the failure to appear was not intentional. It appears that the petitioner is to superannuate in April, 2005 i.e. three months from now. In this period of almost a quarter century, the petitioner has received increments and also promotion while in the service of NBCC. However, his prayer for absorption with NBCC has remained inchoate only because of the pendency of the present writ petition. A person who has served for almost his entire working life with one employer ought not to be shunted out on technicalities.

(3.) This application has been opposed by learned Counsel for NBCC, who were also not present on 8.4.2004 when the Petition had been dismissed. Order IX of the Civil Procedure Code specifically stipulates that notice of the application need not issue to absent parties. Such parties, a fortiori, have no right to oppose the restoration. Be that as it may I am satisfied that the petitioner was prevented by sufficient reasons from appearing in this Court on 8.4.2004 when the case was called on for hearing and his non-appearance was not intentional or mala fide.