UNION OF INDIA Vs. SURENDRA KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NONE of the advocates for the parties is present due to the call of strike given by the Bar Association.

(2.) AT the outset it is required to be mentioned that the first appeal was directed to be listed for final hearing in the fourth week of March, 2013, considering the application bearing No. 11023/11 of the respondent seeking expeditious hearing. Again the first appeal was directed to be listed for hearing on 15.7.14 as per the request made by the respondent in Civil Misc. Application 12633/14. When the appeal was listed on 15.7.14, the parties were personally present, however had prayed for time and hence it was adjourned to 22.7.14. It appears that thereafter on 22.7.14 and on 31.7.14, the respondent had not remained present and matter was adjourned to 5.8.14. On 5.8.14, the court after granting full opportunity of hearing to Mr. Vikram Singh, Dy. Commandant, who was present on behalf of the appellant and the respondent Shri Surendra Kumar, had expressed its opinion that the appeal deserved to be allowed. The respondent therefore requested the court to grant a short time to make further submission, if any. The court considering his request kept the matter on 7.8.14. However on 7.8.14, the respondent did not remain present, and the court adjourned the matter on 12.8.14, on which date the wife of the respondent had remained present and sought time on the ground that the respondent was sick. The court therefore adjourned the matter on 21.8.14 with clarification that no further time shall be granted. On 21.8.14, son of the respondent Mr. Satyadev Singh, remained present and sought time. Since the court had already heard the respondent on 5.8.14 and thereafter the respondent did not remain present under one pretext or the other, the court had shown its reluctance in adjourning the matter, however considering the request of the son of the respondent, one last opportunity was granted upto 26.8.14 i.e. today.

(3.) THE present first appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 29.2.92 passed by the Addl. District Judge No. 2, Ajmer (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Civil Suit No. 87/85, whereby the trial court had decreed the suit of the respondent -plaintiff declaring the order dated 19.11.83 terminating the services of the respondent -plaintiff and the order dated 28.4.84 passed by the appellate authority as null and void and directed the appellants -defendants to reinstate the respondent -plaintiff as Pharmacist with effect from 20.11.83 and pay him backwages of Rs. 10,221/ - and other pending benefits.