KANTILAL G JOSHI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhavnagar, ort 18th July 1978 in Special Suit No. 104 of 1977, by invoking the aid of Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code.

(2.) Present appellant is the original plaintiff who had to initiate a legal battle against the respondent/original defendant against his compulsory retirement on his attaining the age of 58. The appellant, inter alia, contended that he was wrongly and illeg Hy ordered to retire on his attaining the age of 58 as he was entitled to the benefit of the provisions of Rule 2046 (F.R. 56) of the Indian Railway Establishment Code (Voli me II) ('Railway Code' for short, 'hereinafter). According to the case of the appellant, he Was entitled to continue in service till he attained the age of 60 years, as he entered the employment with the government before 31st March 1938. According to his case, he was appointed as coppersmith with effect from 4th April 1930, as an employee of the Erstwhile Bhavnagar State Railway. It may be mentioned that the Erstwhile Bhavnagar State Railway merged into Saurashtra Railway and later on, into Western Railway. The appellant also contended that he was appointed as a coppersmith on a permanent post with effect from 4lh April 1930, and, therefore, he was entitled to the benefit of the provisions of Rule 2046 of the Railway Code, as aforesaid. However, he was ordered to retire on 2nd October 1973, on his attaining the age of 58 years. Therefore, after serving the statutory notice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code, he filed the above suit. The respondent/original defendant resisted the suit on various grounds. On appreciation of the evidence and on interpretation of the rule in question, the Trial Court refused to accord the benefit of Rule 2046 of the Railway Code. With the result, the suit of the plaintiff came to be dismissed and hence the present appeal. A very short, but a substantial and significant question, is raised before us in this appeal which revolves round the interpretation of the provisions of Rule 2046 of the Railway Code.

(3.) In order to appreciate the merits of this appeal and challenge against it, it would be necessary at this juncture, to refer to the relevant factual aspects on record. At this stage, firstly, it would be necessary to refer to the following admitted facts: