LRS OF BHAGWAN DUTT Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) The appellants now legal representatives of the original plaintiff have challenged the judgment and decree passed by the appellate court dated 13th October 1999.

(3.) The facts of this case are relevant because plaintiff in his life time filed the suit for injunction against the State Government and the Aryuveda Department of the State Government with the allegation that plaintiff is in Government service as he was appointed by the State Government by order dated 4th June, 1951. He was appointed as part time labour, but he continued to serve till the impugned order dated 12-12-1988 was issued by the State Government directing to terminate the services of the plaintiff. The plaintiff challenged the State Government's order dated 12-12-1988 and consequential orders dated 17-12-1988 and 23-12-1988 principally on the ground that the order was passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the plaintiff and since the plaintiff is Government servant, he cannot be removed from service without assigning any reason. It appears that question of jurisdiction of civil court was not raised by the defendant-State before either trial court or first appellate court. The trial court held that the defendant-State committed serious illegality in terminating the service of the plaintiff, who was in service of the State Government. The trial court, therefore, declared the above mentioned orders illegal. However, the trial court permitted defendants to terminate the service of the plaintiff if they wishes then according to law. Though the decree was passed by the trial court in favour of the plaintiff, but the plaintiff preferred appeal for getting relief that he is entitled for consequential benefits including the benefit of enhancement of emoluments on completion of 9,18 and 27 years of service. Since that was not the plea taken by the plaintiff in the original suit, therefore, after the decree of the trial court, the plaintiff submitted an application before the appellate court under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC to amend the plaint so that plaintiff may including further reliefs. The first appellate court dismissed the plaintiff's application for amendment of the plaint by order dated 2nd April, 1999. The first appellate court, thereafter, heardthe appeal on merit and, thereafter dismissed the appeal in view of the fact that the relief, which was claimed by the plaintiff in the suit has been granted by the trial court and the application for amendment of the plaint for further relief was dismissed by the first appellate court, therefore, no relief could have been granted to the plaintiff in appeal in addition to the relief already granted by the trial court.