AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Abhilasha Kumari, J.—Rule. Mr. J.A. Adeshra, learned Advocate, waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the Gujarat State Finance Corporation Staff Union (original Petitioner), Mr. Maulik G. Nanavati, learned Assistant Government Pleader, waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the State of Gujarat and Mr. R.D. Dave, learned advocate, waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the Gujarat State Finance Corporation. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and with the consent of the learned Counsel for the respective parties, the application is being heard and finally decided, today.
This application has been filed with the following prayers:
(A) To give the permission to joined as affected party on Natural justice and ask the original Petitioner and original Respondents to give me the copy of petition and affidavit filed by the Respondents as well as any other documents filed in Hon''ble High Court till today, so that I will be in a position to file appropriate affidavit along with documentary evidence for natural justice as per Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
The applicant-party-in-person is a former employee of the Gujarat State Financial Corporation ("GSFC" for short), who has taken voluntary retirement under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, in the year 2008. A petition has been filed in this Court, being Special Civil Application No. 15090 of 2010 by the Gujarat State Financial Corporation Staff Union. The issue involved in the petition is whether the age of retirement of the employees of the GSFC would be governed by the GSFC Staff Regulations of 1961 or by the GSFC Staff Regulations of 1979. While this issue is pending adjudication, the party-in-person has filed the present application for impleadment as party to the petition.
Mr. Dharmendra Pravinchandra Shukla, party-in-person, has addressed the Court at length. According to him, he has locus-standi to become party to the petition because the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, as approved by the State Government vide Government Resolution dated 03.05.2008, is arbitrary and unconstitutional and that the applicant would, therefore, be affected by the outcome of the petition. It is submitted that the Regulations of 1961, which provide that employees of the GSFC can be retired on rendering 30 years of service, were not implemented upto the year 2004 and for the first time, in 2004, 23 persons were made to retire. The party-in-person has vehemently assailed the Government Resolution dated 03.05.2008 vide which the Voluntary Retirement Scheme of 2008 has been sanctioned. Drawing the attention of this Court to Regulation No. 19 of the Regulations of 1961, pertaining to superannuation and retirement, it is submitted by the applicant that if the Court comes to the conclusion that the Regulations of 1979 are to be implemented, it would have a bearing on the applicant, who has taken voluntary retirement, therefore the application may be allowed.
The application has been strongly opposed by Mr. J.A. Adeshra, learned advocate for the original Petitioner-Gujarat State Finance Corporation Staff Union, by submitting that the party-in-person has no locus to file this application, much less to be joined as party to the petition filed by him, as the petition has been filed on 25.11.2010, whereas the party-in-person has taken voluntary retirement on 11.08.2008. As the party-in-person has ceased to be a member of the Petitioner-Union, having taken voluntary retirement, he is neither a proper nor necessary party for the decision of the issue involved in the petition, which is whether the Regulations of 1961, or of 1979, will be applicable to the members of the Petitioner-Union. It is further submitted that the applicant will not be affected by the final decision of the petition and, in any case, he has filed Special Civil Application No. 4358 of 2008, which is pending. If the applicant wants to challenge any Resolution or Notification of the Government, he is at liberty to file a substantive petition, but cannot seek to raise this issue in the petition filed by the original Petitioner, to which he is a stranger, therefore, the application be rejected.
Mr. R.D. Dave, learned advocate appearing for the Gujarat State Finance Corporation, has also opposed the grant of the prayers made in the application on similar grounds. It is submitted that the applicant has no locus-standi to file the application as the applicant shall not be affected, in any manner, by any decision that may be rendered by the Court, upon the issues raised in the petition, therefore, he cannot be permitted to address the Court on the merits of the matter. It is contended that the party-in-person has retired voluntarily on 11.08.2008 and at the present moment, he is not even an employee of the GSFC, therefore, the decision rendered in the petition will have no bearing upon him. The party-in-person has taken all available benefits under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme and, as such, has no connection with the issue of age of retirement, that is the subject matter of the petition, therefore, the application may be dismissed, with costs.
Mr. Maulik G. Nanavati, learned Assistant Government Pleader, has also opposed the prayer for joining as party, made by the applicant, by adopting the arguments advanced by the learned advocate for the GSFC.
I have heard the applicant-party-in-person and the learned Counsel for the Respondents.
If the prayer made in the application is perused, it is seen that there is no formal prayer for joining the applicant as party to the petition. However, such an averment is made in Ground-J on running page-5 of the application, wherein it is stated that, as the applicant would be directly affected, it is necessary to join him as party on the ground of "Natural Justice". Though the applicant is a practising advocate, but as he is appearing in-person, a technical view is not being taken, and it is understood that the party-in-person intended to make a prayer for joining as party to the petition.
It is not disputed that the applicant, who was an employee of the GSFC, has taken voluntary retirement on 11.08.2008. It is also not disputed that having done so, the applicant is no longer a member of the GSFC Staff Union, who is the Petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 15090 of 2010. Having chosen to take voluntary retirement after availing all benefits under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, the applicant is no longer concerned whether the employees of the Corporation are made to retire after 30 years or service as per Regulations of 1961, or at the age of 58 years, as per the Regulations of 1979. The applicant has made a voluntary exit from the service of the Respondent-Corporation of his own volition, therefore the issue involved in the petition does not concern him any longer. As such, this Court does not find any substance in the averments made in the application or, the submissions made by the party-in-person, that he would be affected by the outcome of Special Civil Application No. 15090 of 2010. Apart from making a bald statement, the applicant has been unsuccessful in placing material on record or raising cogent grounds to substantiate the same.
In the petition filed by the GSFC Staff Union, it has been prayed as below:
(A) This Hon''ble Court be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction to the Respondent No. 2 to implement newly inserted Regulation 18 of GSFC Staff Regulations of 1979 to the members of the Petitioner union and restrain the Respondents from retiring the members of Petitioner union till they attain the age of superannuation viz. 58 years.
(B) This Hon''ble Court be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction by declaring that the Respondents do not have any right, power or authority to apply Regulation No. 19 of GSFC (Staff) Regulations of 1961 which is repealed and replaced by Regulation 18 of GSFC Staff Regulations of 1979, which prescribes the age of retirement as 58 years.
(C) This Hon''ble Court be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction by directing the Respondents to forthwith take back/ reinstate the members of Petitioner union (whose names are mentioned in the list at Annexure-F) to their original post and permit them to continue to serve the Respondent No. 2 till they attain the age of superannuation viz. 58 years.
(D) Pending admission hearing and final disposal of this petition, this Hon''ble Court be pleased to restrain the Respondents from retiring the members of Petitioner union including the persons whose names are mentioned in the list at Annexure-G, before completion of the age of 58 years and further be pleased to order/ direct the Respondents to permit the members of the Petitioner union to discharge their duties till completion of the age of 58 years and to pay them their salary and other benefits regularly.
(E) This Hon''ble Court be pleased to grant any such other & further reliefs deemed just and proper in view of their facts and circumstances of this case and in the interest of justice.
As can be seen from the above-extracted prayers, they specifically pertain to the members of the Petitioner-Union, and not to those persons who have availed of the benefits of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme such as the party-in-person. The party-in-person has been unable to show that he has locus-standi, or that he is a proper, necessary or even an affected party, so as to justify his joining in the petition. The issues raised in the petition can very well be adjudicated in the absence of the party-in-person who, in the view of this Court, is neither a proper, necessary or affected party.
The prayer made in the application is to give the party-in-person a copy of the petition and the affidavit filed by the Respondents, as well as other documents filed in the Court till date. This prayer cannot be granted, in view of the conclusion arrived at by this Court that the applicant is not a proper or necessary party, or that his presence is required in order to effectively adjudicate upon the issues involved in the petition.
Before parting with this order, it deserves to be noted that though some lenience can be shown to a party-in-person, who is not normally conversant with law, however, such lenience cannot be stretched to the extent that the party-in-person is permitted to lower the decorum of the Court, either in the matter of use of proper language, or otherwise. In this case, the party-in-person is a practising advocate. The language used in the application is not in good taste. It is stated by the party-in-person, that he is not fluent in the English language. Be that as it may, this aspect is not required to be dwelt upon as there is no merit in the application.
For the above stated reasons, the application deserves to be dismissed. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Rule is discharged.