UNION OF INDIA Vs. RAMDAYAL CHUNILAL YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition, purporting to be under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, I am requested to issue a writ of certiorari, or any other appropriate writ or order, quashing the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge of Sirmur on 28-10-1957 in Civil Appeal No. 17-S/13 of 1956 and further to restrain the respondent (decree-holder) from taking any action under the aforesaid decree.

(2.) The facts, leading to this petition, as stated thereunder, are, briefly, as follows: The respondent Shri R.C. Yadav was employed by the former State of Bilaspur, as an engineer. When Bilaspur State merged in the Union of India, Shri Yadav's services were continued in a temporary capacity. In March, 1950, the P. W. D. establishment of Bilaspur was brought under the control of the Himachal Pradesh P. W. D. The respondent was posted as S. D. O. Paonta, District Sirmur. It was, eventually, decided that the respondent should not be absorbed in permanent service and his services were terminated on 17-10-1950 by an order of the Chief Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh, in consultation with the Chief Commissioner Bilaspur.

(3.) Aggrieved by the termination of his services, the respondent, R.C. Yadav, filed a suit in the Court of the Senior Subordinate Judge at Nahan (Civil Suit No. 6/1 of 1955), praying for a declaration that the termination of his services was illegal and ultra vires and he be restored to service. The suit was resisted by the then State of Himachal Pradesh and the Union of India on various grounds. On 6-10-1956, that learned Judge non-suited the plaintiff on the ground that, in the absence of a prayer for consequential relief, the suit for mere declaration was not competent. The unsuccessful plaintiff went up in appeal and the learned District Judge of Sirmur, vide his judgment and decree dated 28-101957 in Civil Appeal No. 17-S/13 of 1956, set aside the decision of the trial Court and passed a decree f in favour of the plaintiff to the effect that: "The orders of terminating his services as S. D. O. Paonta are wrongful, illegal and void and the same are set aside and the plaintiff is restored to his service as a Sub-Divisional Officer."