GOPAL CHURIWALA Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO 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 categorization/promotion. Those two points which were urged before the first Court were as follows:

(2.) IN respect of both these points, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that it is rather late in the day for the appellant-petitioner to challenge his categorisation accorded to him in the year 1975 and more so when the said categorsation 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 un-successfully for the same relief, namely, challenging his 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.) IT has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India that if the appellate court or the revisional authority endorses or affirms the reason given by the original authority, it need not give separate reasons. Following the said principle, this Court refrains from giving any reasoning but adopts the reasonings given by the first Court in refuting the contentions of the Counsel appearing for the appellant-petitioner that the petitioner is not covered under the said scheme.