VIJAY KISAN SHELAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Advocates for the parties. Also perused the record.

(2.) THE applicant challenges the order, dated 20-1-1996, passed in Misc. Application No. 116 of 1993, by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune. By the impugned order, the trial Court has dismissed the application filed or amendment of the decree which was passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 1513 of 1985 and confirmed in Appeal No. 628 of 1989. It was the contention of the applicant that pursuant to the observations in para 25 of the judgment of the trial Court in R. C. Suit No. 1513 of 1985, the applicant ought to have been granted back wages with effect from 20-7-1985 to 25-9-1985 to the tune of Rs. 1,24,540. 75 ps. , which has been by mistake omitted by the trial Court while passing the operative portion of the judgment and decree and, therefore, the decree needs to be amended. The trial Court as well as the lower Appellate Court after going through the records have rejected the said application by the impugned order. Hence the present revision application.

(3.) UNDISPUTEDLY, the suit was filed for a declaration and injunction. The relief sought for in the suit was for the declaration that the order bearing No. Asthapana-1457 dated 19th July, 1985 of the second defendant in the suit directing transfer of the plaintiff to Ahmednagar being illegal and void and not binding on the plaintiff and that the plaintiff was entitled to continue his work as a linen-keeper in the office of the second defendant, and for the order of injunction restraining the defendants from giving effect to the said order. Considering the nature of the dispute in the suit, the trial Court had framed the issues, firstly as to whether the order dated 18-7-1985 of transfer of the plaintiff to Ahmednagar as Linen Keeper was mala fide, capricious and discriminatory, secondly whether the order of transfer was made to victimise the plaintiff, and thirdly whether the suit was not maintainable in the absence of notice under section 80 of C. P. C. or in the absence of getting permission to file the suit without such notice. The first two issues were answered in the affirmative and the third one in the negative. Accordingly, the suit was decreed declaring that the transfer order of the plaintiff from Pune to Ahmednagar passed by the defendant No. 3 bearing No. B-3/asthapana/18332-34 dated 18th July, 1985 was illegal and void and hence not binding upon the plaintiff, and the defendants were restrained from giving effect to the said transfer order. Further the defendant Nos. 1 to 5 were directed to pay costs to the plaintiff. The appeal filed against the said judgment by the respondents being Civil Appeal No. 628 of 1989 was dismissed. The second appeal against the same being Second Appeal No. 629 of 1991 was also rejected by this Court.