SURESHKUMAR DODIA Vs. CHIEF OFFICER PRESIDENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . A Draft amendment has been given by Shri P.H. Pathak, learned Counsel for the petitioner seeking certain amendments in the petition. The draft amendment is opposed by Shri P.V.Hathi, learned Counsel for the respondent. The prayer in the draft amendment is to declare that the Resolution dated 17.10.1988 applies to the employees of the respondent Nagarpalika and direct the respondents to extend the benefits of resolution dated 17.10.1988 to the petitioner employees. Alternative amendment is sought that it may be declared that the decision of the respondent to exclude the employees of the Nagarpalika from extending the benefits of Resolution dated 17.10.1988 is ultravires the Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India and to declare the Resolution dated 17.10.1988 to that extent as unconstitutional and direct the respondents to extend the benefits under Resolution dated 17.10.1988 to the employees of the Nagarpalika. Further amendment sought is to declare inaction on the part of the respondents extending the benefits as per the Resolution to the petitioner employees, as arbitrary, illegal, unjust and violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India and to direct the respondents to grant all consequential benefits of the Resolution dated 17.10.1988 with 18 % per annum interest. The draft amendment cannot be granted as of right. Only such amendments can be granted which are essential for adjudication of the real controversy between the parties. The purpose of this draft amendment is simply to delay the disposal of admission matter. Since the petitioners are claiming benefit under Resolution dated 17.10.1988 they cannot be permitted to challenge the vires of the said resolution. The draft amendment is, therefore, rejected.

(2.) . Now I propose to dispose of the Civil Application No.3593 of 2001 in Special Civil Application No.7 of 2001.

(3.) . Special Civil Application No.7 of 2001 has been taken up for admission first.