STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. BHOGILAL LALLUBHAI PANDYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant in this appeal is the original defendant and the respondants are the heirs and legal representatives of the original plaintiff. The plaintiff was a Government servant and the defendent is the original State of Bombay and now the State of Gujarat. The suit was instituted in 1957 against the State of Bombay. The appeal against the decision of the learned trial Judge was heard and disposed of by the learned Assistant Judge Kaira on September 14 1960 and thereafter this appeal was filed after bifurcation of the bilingual State of Bombay; and the litigation has continued with the State of Gujarat as the defendant.

(2.) The plaintiffs case as set out in the plaint was that he had joined service in the Education Department of the erstwhile Baroda State on June 26 1935 and he was confirmed as a teacher in that Department on August 1 1939 After his confirmation be continued to serve Baroda State as a teacher and on May 1 1949 when the Baroda State was merged with the State of the Bombay he was still working as a teacher. As the plaintiff was a permanent servant of the State of Baroda he was absorbed by the State of Bombay as Assistant Teacher in the scale of Rs. 61-3-85- 4 At the time of the merger the salary of the plaintiff in Baroda State service was Rs. 75.00 p. m. and in the State of Bombay in the above scale that plaintiffs salary was adjusted at the stage of Rs. 73.00 and Rs. 2.00 p. m. were allowed to him as personal pay with effect from May 1 1945 After the merger of the State of Baroda the plaintiff was given his annual increments in this grade till lie was discharged from service under the circumstances set out hereinbelow.

(3.) At the time of the merger of the State of Baroda i.e. on May 1 1949 the plaintiff was serving as an Assistant Teacher in N.K. High School Petlad and he continued in the same posting till 1953. In that year N. K. High School Petlad was handed over by the State Government to the Petlad Municipality and at that time the Municipality was not prepared to retain the services of the plaintiff as a guaranteed teacher and therefore the State Government transferred the plaintiff to the Government English School at Tarapur in the Vicinity of Petlad and this transfer to Tarapur was effected in December 1953. The plaintiff continued to serve as an Assistant Teacher in the Tarapur School till 14th June 1954. The Educational Inspector Kaira District wrote a latter to the plaintiff dated March 6 1954 informing the plaintiff and two of his other colleagues that the Tarapur School was being handed over to the Kelvani Mandal of Tarapur and that that Mandal was not willing to retain the plaintiffs services and of his two colleagues as guaranteed teachers and that therefore their services would not be required and that they would be discharged from service with effect from the opening day of the next acadamic year and that they would be duly given their pension and gratuity according to the rules. After the receipt of this letter the plaintiff immediately objected to the proposed action but nothing fruitful transpired and by his letter dated June 7 1954 the Head-Master of Tarapur English School asked the plaintiff to hand over his charge The plaintiff also objected to the handing over the charge but ultimately he was compelled to hand over charge and was discharged from service with effect from June 14 1954 On that date the plaintiff was drawing a salary of Rs. 89.00 per month in the abovementioned grade of the Bombay State and having been born on June 3 1909 was 45 years of age on June 14 1954 The date of his superannuation was still not due and according to the Superannuation Rules of the Baroda State his superannuation age was 58 years; and hence according to the plaintiff was entitled to continue in service till he completed the age of 58 years. The plaintiff has stated in his plaint that he had represented all these points as also the point about his wrongful and unlawful discharge to the Collector of Kaira and also to the Education Department and to the Government of Bombay but to no avail. The plaintiff further contended that in addition to his pay he was being paid Rs. 45.00 p. m. as Dearness Allowance and the plaintiff further disclosed in the plaint that after he was discharged from the Government English School at Tarapur N.K. High School Petlad again employed him as a teacher but he was discharged and his salary was not fixed; and later on the Education Inspector fixed his salary at Rs. 56.00 p. m. The plaintiff therefore contended that he had suffered a great loss by the discharge order which he contended was illegal ultra vires improper and invalid. The plaintiff therefore filed the suit in the Court of the Civil Judge Sr. Dn. Nadiad claiming compensation for the loss and damage caused to him.