Ashokkumar S/O Ram Narayan Dubey vs Western Coal Fields Limited, Thr. ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 4059 Bom

                                                1

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                           NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

                             WRIT PETITION NO.2232 OF 2017.


   PETITIONER:                      Ashokkumar Ram Narayan Dubey,
                                    aged about 54 years, Occu: Service, 
                                    R/o Naya Bazar, Kamptee, Tahsil,
                                    Kamptee, Distt.Nagpur.


                                             : VERSUS :


   RESPONDENTS:  1. Western Coal Fields Limited,
                    through its Area General Manager,
                    Nagpur area, P.O.Jaripatka, Tq.and 
                    Distt.Nagpur.

                              2. The Deputy Chief Medical Officer,
                                 Western Coal Fields Limited, Jawaharlal
                                 Nehru Hospital, Kamptee (Nagpur area), 
                                 Tahsil Kamptee, Distt.Nagpur.

                               3.   The Senior Manager (Mining),
                                    Western Coal Fields Ltd., Patansawangi
                                    Mines, Tahsil Saoner, Distt.Nagpur.


   -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
   Mr.R.M.Pande, Advocate for the petitioner.
   Mr.Ramesh Darda, Advocate for respondent nos.1 to 3.
   =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-


                                                       CORAM:   P.N.DESHMUKH, J.

                                                       DATED:    5th JULY, 2017.







   ORAL JUDGMENT:


   1.             Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.     Heard finally by

consent of learned counsel of both the parties.

2. Short challenge in this petition is to impugned order dated

30th January, 2017 passed by learned trial Court partly rejecting

application filed by petitioner for effecting amendment.

3. Perusal of documents filed with the petition reveal that in a

suit filed by plaintiff before the trial Court seeking declaration and

mandatory and permanent injunction with regards to his date of birth,

praying that same be corrected to 1st January, 1962 from 1st July, 1956,

petitioner had filed application for amending the plaint so as to bring on

record subsequent events. The amendment sought to be effected is

reproduced as below :-

"14-A. It is further submitted that the defendants

have superannuated the plaintiff from service w.e.f.

30/6/2016 A.O.H. and accordingly, issued a

communication under the signature of Deputy Chief

Medical Officer (in-charge), Jawaharlal Nehru

Hospital, Kamptee, dated 30/6/2016, informing the

plaintiff that the plaintiff stands retired w.e.f.

30/6/2016 A.O.H. and his name stands struck off

from th Roll of the defendants. It is further submitted

that the action on the part of the defendants in

superannuating the plaintiff from service w.e.f.

30/6/2016 A.O.H. is illegal, arbitrary, without any

basis and violative of the principles of natural justice.

14-B. The plaintiff, therefore, submits that the

defendants are required to be directed to re-instate the

plaintiff in service forthwith w.e.f. 1/7/2016 with

continuity and back wages."

4. Perusal of impugned order reveals that application for

effecting amendment is partly allowed observing that, in para 14-A,

petitioner wanted to add facts of his superannuation by respondent

during the pendency of the suit which was crucial subsequent

development and accordingly allowed said part of application and had

rejected para 14-B of the application finding that the Court was not

competent to grant such relief and relief sought by petitioner under

para 14-B of the application can be granted by some other competent

Court.

5. Considering the prayer made and facts mentioned in the

application for seeking amendment, there appears no reason to interfere

with the impugned order as learned trial Court appears to have rightly

considered para 14-A of the application and thus allowing petitioner to

place on record subsequent events which took place pending suit, and

has rightly not allowed to amend the petition with regards to contents

in para no.14-B of the application finding that the remedy sought for is

out of jurisdiction of said Court and in that view of the matter petitioner

can take necessary recourse available under law.

6. Having considered the facts as aforesaid, it is found that

there is no substance in the petition and same is thus liable to be

dismissed by granting liberty in favour of petitioner to agitate further

claim, which shall be subject to outcome of judgment and order in

Regular Civil Suit No.2 of 2016 pending on the file of 2 nd Jt.Civil Judge

(Jr.Dn.), Kamptee.

JUDGE chute