LAWS(RAJ)-2002-3-81

PRADEEP KUMAR Vs. SATE OF RAJASTHAN

Decided On March 19, 2002
PRADEEP KUMAR Appellant
V/S
SATE OF RAJASTHAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal has been filed against the judgment and order of the learned Appellate Court dated 25.9.2001, allowing the appeal of the respondent.

(2.) THE facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that vide order dated 19.4.1980, appellant had been appointed temporarily as a Lower Division Clerk with a clear stipulation that his services would be liable to be terminated without any notice. His services stood terminated without providing any opportunity of hearing or issuing show cause notice vide order dated 3.3.1981. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant filed Civil Suit No. 178/1981 in the Civil Court, Bikaner, which was allowed vide judgment and decree dated 5.11.1999 with the direction that appellant should be reinstated with all consequential benefits. However, as in the meanwhile, appellant had joined the service in the Government of Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur with effect from 26.3.1984, he was deprived of the back wages from the said date. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the State preferred first appeal, which has been allowed vide impugned judgment and order dated 25.9.2001, mainly on the ground that the said civil suit was not maintainable and even otherwise as appellant's services were temporary and liable to be terminated without any notice, the termination, vide order dated 3.3.1981, was not illegal. Hence this appeal.

(3.) UNDOUBTEDLY , the second appeal can be entertained only on a substantial question of law. The Hon'ble Apex Court has been taking a very serious view of the matter emphasising that the High Courts should not entertain a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'the Code') unless it raises a substantial question of law. In Panchu Gopal Barua v. Umesh Chandra Goswami and Ors., : [1997]2SCR12 , the Court observed that while entertaining the second appeal, the Court should not over -look the change brought about by the Amendment Act of 1976 restricting the scope of second appeal drastically and now it applies only to appeals involving substantial question of law, specifically set -out in the memorandum of appeals and formulated by the High Court. The Court, for the reasons to be recorded, may also entertain a second appeal even on any other substantial question of law, not formulated by it, if the Court is satisfied that the case involves such a question. Therefore, the existence of a substantial question of law is a sine -qua -non for the exercise of jurisdiction under the amended provisions of Section 100 of the Code. It is the obligation on the Court of Law to further the clear intendment of the Legislature and not to frustrate it by ignoring the same.