GUJARAT HOUSING BOARD Vs. C G DESAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Gujarat Housing Board has filed this appeal against the respondent-plaintiff being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned Judge at the city Civil Court Court No. 15 on 13-3-1980 by which the respondents-plaintiffs suit was decreed and it was declared that the suit resolution dated 19/12/1978 at Exhibit 19 recommending the plaintiffs premature retirement from service and the consequential order dated 5/06/1979 at Exhibit 20 retiring the plaintiff prematurely form service are illegal and invalid and of no consequence whatsoever. It was declared that the plaintiff continued to be in service irrespective of the suit resolution at Exhibit 19 and the suit order at Exhibit 20 and was entitled to all benefits of service with effect from the date of the suit order at Exhibit 20 that is with effect from 5/06/1979 and a mandatory injunction was also issued directing the respondent to reinstate the plaintiff in service with immediate effect.

(2.) A few facts leading to this appeal dissolve to be noted at the outset. The respondent-plaintiff joined the service of the then Bombay Housing Board and his services came to be allocated to the State of Gujarat from 1/05/1960 and he was serving as a Superintendent with effect from 1/09/1973 in the Gujarat Housing Board. The plaintiff had some grievance regarding his non-promotion to a higher post and hence he had approached the industrial Tribunal functioning under the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 Ultimately promotion came to be given to him with effect from 1/09/1973. Thereafter the plaintiffs case was reviewed for retirement by the Recruitment and Establishment Committee of the appellant Board which by its resolution dated 19/12/1978 recommended that the plaintiff should be retired from service after the age of 50 years. Pursuant to the said recommendations of the Recruitment and Establishment Cormorant of the appellant the suit order came to be passed. The decision of the learned trial Judge rested on the following points which he found in favour of the plaintiff. 1 The impugned order were violative of Rule 161 (1) (aa) (1) of the relevant Rules read with Government Circular Exhibit 17 inasmuch as the plaintiff was made to retire a few months after he had already crossed the age of 50 years when his case was reviewed by the review committee and such a procedure was de hors the scheme of the aforesaid rule and the clear mandate of the Government Resolution Exhibit 17 under which the appellate was required to review the plaintiffs case six months before the plaintiff actually reached the age of 50 and as the review in question and the consequential orders were passed a few months after the plaintiff having actually reached the age of 50 years the entire exercise vas null and void.

(3.) As per the Government Circular Exhibits 17 which was binding on the Board review committee was not properly constituted. As the head of the department under whom the plaintiff was working was not a member of the review committee the recommendations of the review committee became invalid and inoperative at law and consequently the impugned orders also would fall through.