AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The captioned petition is listed at Sr. No.6 in today''s cause list for final hearing.
The cause list reflects below quoted status:
6 SCA 2918/1990 RISHNAKANT J. BHATT V GUJARAT ELECTRICITY BOARD NOTICE UNSERVED:1 (MR PB MAJMUDAR):1 NOTICE SERVED:13 Remarks Petitioner unserved as retired
According to the remarks in cause list, even after fresh notice, process of Rule is not served to the Petitioner. Though process is served to respondent, no one has entered appearance.
Along with the petition, the office has circulated office note dated 17.02.2017, which reads thus: "In connection with the aforesaid matter, it is respectfully submitted that as per computer status, it is found that Advocate notice issued to petitioner was received back unserved and notice issued to respondents are served.
It is further respectfully submitted that on verification it is found that the aforesaid matter pertains to Labour Category.
Therefore, the aforesaid matter is respectfully placed before the Honourable Court for kind perusal and passing necessary order."
The petition is pending since 1990 and record reflects that after the petition was admitted on 10.04.1990, it is not prosecuted on merits after April, 1990. The order sheet contains below mentioned orders: "S.O. to 9490 4410 Sd/" "S.O. to 10490 9410 Sd/" "Rule to be heard alongwith Special Civil Application No.274 of 1984. Interim relief refused. Sd/( R.C.Mankad,J.) Sd/10/ 4/1990 (V.H.Bhairavia, J.)" Record reveals that except above quoted order any order is not passed. Reply is also not filed.
From above quoted order and record of the present petition, it appears that after filing the petition, the Petitioner seems to have abandoned the proceedings.
In this context, it would be appropriate to take into account the relief prayed for in present petition: "12. The petitioner, therefore, prays as under:
(a) Be pleased to admit the petition;
(b) Be pleased to direct the respondent to allow the petitioner to continue to serve upto the age of 60 years, by issuing a suitable writ, direction and/ or order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India;
(c) Be pleased to direct the respondents not to superannuate the petitioner at the age of attaining 58 years i.e. on 30.04.1990, and allow him to continue to serve upto 60 years, by issuing a suitable writ, direction and/ or order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India;
(d) Be pleased to direct the respondents to give same benefit of serving upto 60 years to alol the Deputy Engineers by issuing a suitable writ, direction and / or order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India;
(e) Be pleased to grant interim injunction, restraining the respondents, their agents and/ or servants, from superannuating the petitioner with effect from 30.04.1990 till this petition is finally heard and decided by this Hon''ble Court or till 30.04.1992 whichever is earlier, by way of interim relief."
The claimant filed the petition on apprehension that his service would be discontinued when he attain 58 years of age i.e. on 30.04.1990. On such belief or apprehension the petitioner filed present petition on or after 19.03.1990 and on 10.04.1990, while admitting the petition, the Hon''ble Division bench expressly and by specific Order refused interim relief.
In that view of the matter, the petitioner must have been relieved on 30.04.1990 on superannuation when he attained 58 years age.
In this view of the matter, it appears that the cause to prosecute the petition does not survive. By now the petitioner must be more than 80 years old. Besides this, having regard to the fact that according to the details mentioned in the Application, at the relevant time the petitioner was working as Deputy Executive Engineer. The issue as to whether the petitioner would fall within purview of Section 2(s) of the I.D.Act would also arise in the present petition. The Division Bench of this Court has, in Letters Patent Appeal has held that person employed with the Electricity Board in category of Deputy Engineer and above would not fall within purview of Section 2(s) of the I.D.Act.
Having regard to the above mentioned aspects, it is clear that the petition is rendered infructuous and the cause to prosecute the petition does not survive and, therefore, the petitioner seems to have abandoned the proceeding, more particularly after the Court expressly refused interim relief by specific order dated 10.04.1990.
Under the circumstances, this Petition is disposed of as infructuous, however, with clarification that if any grievance of the petitioner survives and if at all the petitioner is interested in prosecuting this petition and if there is any need for further clarification or any order or for any substantial ground he wants to prosecute the present petition on merits, then the petitioner may, within reasonable time after receipt of the copy of this Order take out application with necessary request.
The Office is directed to forward copy of this order to the petitioner by Registered Post A.D. at the address mentioned in the cause title.
With aforesaid direction, the petition is disposed of. Rule is discharged.