(1.) THIS is plaintiffs regular second appeal against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge whereby the appeal filed by the defendants has been accepted, thus, dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff.
(2.) PLAINTIFF filed a suit for declaration to the effect that order No. 28 dated 20. 6. 1974 prematurely retiring him from service is illegal, malicious and so liable to be set aside and that the plaintiff should be deemed to be in service and hence entitled to all the privileges and the benefits of service. In addition thereto plaintiff claimed pay for the period from 1. 5. 1974 to 4. 7. 1974.
(3.) DEFENDANTS contested the suit, raised few preliminary objections and replied as well on merits. Defendants pleaded that suit is not maintainable as the alleged order of retirement has not been passed by way of punishment. Besides it, plaintiff was not a government servant and as no notice had been served upon the defendants the suit was incompetent. Even otherwise, the defendants justified the order retiring the plaintiff stating that on his attaining the age of 55 years, he was retired. Following issues were frames by the trial Court : 1) Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD. 2) Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of parties? OPD. 3) Whether the impugned order dated 20. 6. 1974 is illegal and void for the reasons given in para 2 of the plaint? OPP. 4. Relief. The contest between the parties revolved around issue No. 3.