NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. ASHOK KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the orders dated 7-9-1991, passed by Addl. Munsif, Gorakhpur rejecting the petitioner's objection under section 47 CPC and the order dated 21-1-1992, passed by the VII Additional District Judge, Gorakhpur (Respondent No. 1) rejecting the revision filed by the petitioner against the said order dated 7-9-1991, with the consent of the parties, the writ petition is being finally decided at the admission stage.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the relevant facts are that the respondent No. 1 Ashok Kumar Snvastava filed a *uit agaiinst the National Insurance Company (Petitioner) ;n the court of Munsif, Gorakhpur alleging that he was appointed as an Inspector by ths defendant Insurance Company on Probation of one year vide la: appointment letter dated 2-12-1980 with effect from 19-9-1980. The appointment letter stated that the probation was extendable by another 12 months. According to the plaintiff all of a sudden he received a notice dated 13 i-1982 terminating his services with effect from the same date i.e. 13-3-1982. It was alleged by him rjhat he had not received any letter extending his Probation after one year and neither could Probation be extcviei to any period lesser than 12 mconths; It is this order of termination which was challenged by the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 by means of the aforesaid suit. The plaintiff pleaded in the plaint of the said suit that the notice terminating his services was illegal, unconstitutional and void. It was stated that the order of termination was not a termination order simplicitor but had cast a stigma co the plaintiff and thus amputed to a punishment within the meaning of, the General Insurance Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1975. It was further pleaded that 30 days notice was not given to the petitioner and neither any pay in lieu of notice was given, consequently the notice was null and void. The plaintiff prayed for the following reliefs :

(3.) THE executing court after considering the objections filed by the petitioner vide its order dated 7-9-1991 rejected the said objections by holding that the decree was not purely a declaratory decree but a consequential relief had also been claimed in the same hence the decree was executable. It was also held that execution can also be of an ascertained as well as on an unascertained amount. It further held that the National Insurance Company was a statutory body and has been shown in the schedule of the General Insurance Business (Nationalization) Act, 1972 and hence governed by the General Instance Business (Nationalization) Act Since the plaintiff had alleged contravention of statute on the part of the defendant hence a declaratory decree could be granted and the decree passed was neither void nor a nullity. It was further held that section 11 of the Court Fees Act was not applicable in Che facts of the present case and the decree for consequenital relief was executable.