DISTRICT PANCHAYAT JUNAGADH Vs. MANHARLAL MULCHAND GANDHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these appeals arise out of a judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, at Junagadh, in Civil Regular Appeals No. 131 of 1977 and 123 of 1977. Since common questions are involved in both the appeals and arising out of the composite order passed by the learned District Judge, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. Respondent No.1 in both the appeals is the original plaintiff, who had to initiate a legal battle against the appellant, District Panchayat and respondent No.2, State of Gujarat, by filing Regular Civil Suit No. 574 of 1973, in the Court of Civil Judge (SD), at Junagadh, for declaration that the impugned letter dated 22.5.1973, is void, inoperative and illegal and it should also be declared that the plaintiff is continuing in service as a Field Worker, with full back wages. The parties are, hereinafter, referred to, for the convenience and brevity sake, as "original-plaintiff and "defendants". The defendants appeared and resisted the suit, contending that the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief as he had tendered the resignation, which was accepted by original defendant No.1 In short, all the averments and the allegations made in the plaint came to be traversed by the defendants.

(2.) Having regard to the facts and circumstances and the pleadings of the parlies, issues came to be raised by the Trial Court at Ex.16. Upon examination and analysis of the evidence, the Trial Court reached to the conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration that the impugned order and letter dated 22.5.1973, allegedly taken as resignation by original defendant No.1, is void, illegal and not operative. However, the Trial Court also reached to the conclusion that the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief as regards the salary from 11.11.1972 and, therefore, that prayer came to be rejected. However, it was left by the Trial Court to the Department to pass appropriate orders in that behalf. This decision of the Trial Court, dated 30th July, 1977, came to be questioned before the District Court, by filing two appeals, as aforesaid. Civil Regular Appeal No. 131 of 1973 came to be filed by original defendant no.1 and Civil Regular Appeal No. 123 of 1973 came to be filed by the original plaintiff.

(3.) Having heard the learned advocates of the parties and having considered the facts and circumstances emerging from the record of the case, the learned District Judge was pleased to dismiss the appeal filed by original defendant No. 1 and the appeal filed by the plaintiff was allowed. The decree passed by the learned Trial Court Judge, in favour of the plaintiff, was partly modified. The prayer which was rejected for salary was set-aside the decree of the trial court, rejecting the relief of declaring that the plaintiff is entitled to salary with effect from 11.11.1972, was quashed. The rest of the decree and the judgment of the Trial Court came to be confirmed. Thus, die plaintiff came to be awarded the salary from 11.11.1972, by the learned District Judge, by allowing the appeal of the plaintiff. The judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, on 29th June, 1981, by passing a composite order, came to be questioned by original defendant No. 1, appellant herein , by filing the aforesaid two appeals. Before the merits of these appeals are examined in greater details, it may be specifically mentioned, at the outset, that the jurisdictional sweep of this Court in a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) has been very much circumscribed. Needless to reiterate that, unless and until a substantial question of law is emerging and pointed out successfully, this Court will be at location to interfere with the concurrent finding of facts arrived at by both the courts below. This proposition of law is very well settled and requires no further elucidation.