GOPALCHURIWALA ALIAS SGCHURIWALA Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 1st November, 1991 passed by Aftab Alam, J , on the writ petition filed by the appellant. On a perusal of the said judgment of the first Court, it appears that though various points were urged in the writ petition, counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner only picked up two points relating to his categorisation/promotion. Those two points which were urged before first Court were as follows s-

(2.) In respect of both these points, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that it is rather late in the day for appellant-petitioner to challenge his cateogorlsation accorded to him in the year 1975 and more so when the said categorisation has been accepted by the petitioner without prejudice or objection. In this connection, counsel for respondents pointed out that the petitioner's initial categorisation was made and communicated to him on 29th November, 1975 (Annexure-6). The appellant-petitioner filed an appeal against the said order and the appellate committee has turned down the appeal. It was further recorded by the first court that in the writ petition the petitioner-appellant has not challenged these two orders. The first Court also came to the conclusion that the appellant-petitioner had earlier moved this Hon'ble Court twice unsuccessfully for the same relief, namely, challenging bis categorisation and as such it is not open to the appellant-petitioner to press for the same relief once again. This Court finds that those findings of the first Court are based on cogent materials and, therefore, this Court also endorses the views taken by the first Court in this respect.

(3.) The first Court further records the admission made by the counsel for the appellant-petitioner to the effect that if the categorisation of the appellant-petitioner cannot be called un-authorised, the petitioner shall have no case. As auch the only point urged by the petitioner's counsel in the first Court was that the scheme in question is not applicable to the Officer. In this connection the attention of the Court was drawn to paragraph 3 (b) of the scheme which defines an Officer. The first Court has noted that relying on the said definition, the contention made by the petitioner-appellant's counsel that as an Officer he is out of the purview of the said scheme cannot be sustained. As the appellate court this Court endorses the reasonings given by the learned Judge of the first Court in paragraph 11 of the judgment and this Court is further of the view that by a very cogent reasons the contentions raised by the counsel for the appellant-petitioner have been repelled by the first Court.