RUP KISHAN AGHA Vs. SECYOF STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by a plaintiff whose suit has been dismissed by the Court below, but costs have not been awarded to the defendant. There is no appeal or cross-objection by the defendant with regard to the costs. The plaint, which seems to have been drafted by some one who had neither training nor practice in the drafting of pleadings, is not only prolix, but contains matters which are not relevant to the, reliefs actually prayed for. Some of these irrelevant matters are unfortunately such as may, not unjustifiably, be described as scandalous. The plaint is also in places far from intelligible. The material allegations may be stated thus. The plaintiff was in the service of the Crown in this province as a member of the judicial branch of the Provincial Service and retired in February 1934. He does not state when he entered the service. He alleges that during a period of seven years immediately preceding his retirement he had been "working as a Sessions Sub-Judge and mostly as a District Judge." He then alleges that his "confirmation in both these offices had become due shortly before retirement and also promotion to the selection grade," that "all the three had been withheld, the selection grade only nominally" and that his pension had been reduced by Rs. 1000 per annum. He further states that "the withholding of nominal promotion to the selection grade is not material for reason to be stated." He evidently made representations to the Local Government re-questing them to pass an order confirming him in the posts of Sessions and Subordinate Judge and of District Judge, but the Government declined to do so on the ground that his work generally had not been of such a character as could persuade Government to pass such an order.

(2.) The plaintiff thereupon preferred two appeals--apparently one after the other- -to the Governor against the order of the Local Government. According to the plaint, both these appeals were withheld by the Local Government, These appeals, the plaintiff alleges, were under Rule 57, Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. He thereupon prepared an appeal to the Secretary of State in Council and submitted it to the Local Government with the request that it be forwarded. This appeal, according to the plaintiff, lay under Rule 58 of the said Rules. The Local Government declined to forward this appeal to the Secretary of State. It is stated in the plaint that the reasons given for withholding this appeal were "cryptic and ambiguous and not such as contemplated by Rule 64," but it is not stated what those reasons were. It would appear, however, from the first relief for which the plaintiff has prayed that the appeal was withheld under Clauses (1) and (3) of Rule 64 of the Rules mentioned above, in other words, that the Local Government held that no appeal lay to the Secretary of State under the Rules and that they further found that the appeal had not been preferred within six months after the date on which the appellant had been informed of the order appealed against and no reasonable cause had been shown for the delay. Paragraphs 7 and 8 purport to give reasons for holding that the appellant was entitled to appeal to the Secretary of State in Council and that the view of the Local Government to the contrary was incorrect. We may mention that we have not found it easy to follow all that is said in these paragraphs, and the arguments of the learned Counsel for the appellant have not removed our difficulty. The cause of action for the suit is thus stated in para. 9 of the plaint: The cause of action arose (a) because my appeal to the Secretary of State was not withheld under these rules as required by Rule 64, but in spite and contravention of the rules, and (b) because Rule 64(1) and (3) and Rule 65 and power of selection implied in the Selection Grade are ultra vires.

(3.) It is further stated in this paragraph of the plaint that the cause of action arose at Allahabad in April last when the order of the Local Government withholding the appeal was communicated to me.