Rajasthan High Court
Shiv Prasad S/O Late Shri Ramgopal vs Presidnet, Unit Trust Of India ... on 30 October, 2023
Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
[2023:RJ-JP:31586]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 443/2019
Shiv Prasad S/o Late Shri Ramgopal, R/o Radhakishanpura,
Sikar, Tehsil And District Sikar
----Appellant-Plaintiff
Versus
1. President, Unit Trust Of India Corporation, Registered
Office 13, Sir Vitthaldas Thakur, G-Marg, New Marin Lines,
Mumbai-400020
2. Zonal Manager, Unit Trust Of India, Zonal Office, Jeevan
Bharti, 13Th Floor, Tower 2, 124, Cannaught Circus, New
Delhi 110001
3. Branch Manager, Unit Trust Of India, Jaipur Branch Office
Anand Bhawan, 3rd Floor, Sansar Chandra Road, Jaipur
302001
----Respondents-Defendants
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rahul Agarwal
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Judgment
30/10/2023
This civil second appeal is preferred against the judgment
and decree dated 29.05.2019 passed by the learned Additional
District Judge No.2, Sikar (Rajasthan) (for brevity, "the learned
Appellate Court") in Civil Regular Appeal No.04/2014 B.T.
No.9/2014 (CIS No.389/2014) whereby, while dismissing the
appeal, the judgment and decree dated 24.12.2013 passed by the
learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sikar (Rajasthan)
(for brevity, "the learned trial Court") dismissing the Civil Suit
[2023:RJ-JP:31586] (2 of 5) [CSA-443/2019]
No.136/2003 (199/2000) filed by the appellant-plaintiff (for
brevity, "the plaintiff") for declaration, mandatory injunction and
permanent injunction, have been affirmed.
The relevant facts in brief are that the plaintiff filed a suit as
aforesaid against the respondents-defendants (for brevity, "the
defendants") stating therein that he was appointed as Chief
Representative for District Sikar by the defendants in the year
1988 on contract basis for a period of one year which was
extended from time to time. It was averred that in the financial
year 1996-97, being satisfied with his work and performance, the
defendants opened a collection centre at Sikar wherein, he was
appointed as the Chief Representative. It was stated that
although, his contract period comes to an end on 30 th June of
every year; but, it is being extended by the defendants even with
the delay. It was further stated that his contract for the year
1999-2000 came to an end on 30th June, 2000; but, in absence of
any information by the defendants regarding termination of his
services, he continued to work in the month of July 2000 as well.
It was pleaded that he received a letter dated 30.06.2000 issued
by the defendants, on 19.07.2000 wherein, he was intimated not
to continue work as Chief Representative w.e.f. 01.07.2000;
however, vide the letter dated 10.07.2000 issued by the defendant
no.3, he was asked to attend the meeting at New Delhi on
13.07.2000. It was averred that vide a public advertisement dated
24.07.2000, the defendants have invited the applications for
appointment of a new Chief Representative inter alia at Sikar. It
was further averred that he has not been paid salary for the
months of June and July 2000. Therefore, it was prayed that the
[2023:RJ-JP:31586] (3 of 5) [CSA-443/2019]
letter dated 30.06.2000 and the public advertisement dated
24.07.2000 be declared null and void against his rights, he be
held entitled for salary and other benefits for the contractual year
2000 and future years, he be paid arrears of salary of Rs.12,000/-
for two months along with the decree of permanent injunction.
The defendants no.1 to 3 in their joint written statement,
referring to the Scheme of the UTI Act, 1963 under which they
were constituted, submitted that to carry out the purpose for
which they have been created, they appoint Chief Representatives
on contractual basis at various places who work on the
commission basis. It was stated that the contract of the plaintiff
has come to an end by efflux of time as per terms of the contract.
It was further stated that services of the plaintiff were never hired
on permanent basis on salary. Dismissal of the suit, therefore, was
prayed for.
On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned trial
Court framed ten issues including relief. After recording evidence
of the respective parties, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit
vide judgment and decree dated 24.12.2013. The civil first appeal
preferred thereagainst by the plaintiff has also been dismissed by
the learned Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated
29.05.2019.
Assailing the impugned judgment and decree, learned
counsel for the plaintiff submits that the learned Courts did not
appreciate that his services were hired by the defendants way
back in the year 1988 and he has rendered unblemished services
for a period of twelve years. He submits that no reason was
assigned before terminating his services vide letter dated
[2023:RJ-JP:31586] (4 of 5) [CSA-443/2019]
30.06.2000. He, therefore, prays that the civil second appeal be
allowed, the judgment and decree dated 29.05.2019 be quashed
and set aside and the suit be decreed.
Heard. Considered.
While dismissing the suit, the learned trial Court has held, on
the basis of oral as also documentary evidence on record, that
services of the plaintiff were hired by the defendants on contract
on commission basis for a period of one year which was extended
from time to time which came to an end on 30.06.2000 by efflux
of time and there was no material on record to draw an inference
that the plaintiff was either a permanent employee of the
defendants or was being paid monthly salary. With regard to letter
dated 10.07.2000 issued by the defendant no.3 requiring the
plaintiff to attend the meeting at New Delhi on 13.07.2000, it was
held that it was admitted by the defendants that it came to be
issued inadvertently and it did not create any right in plaintiff's
favour to continue his contract. These findings have been affirmed
by the learned Appellate Court re-appreciating the evidence on
record.
In view thereof, in absence of any evidence on record to
show that services of the plaintiff were ever hired by the
defendants on regular basis or that he was a regular employee of
the defendants on salary basis, in the considered opinion of this
Court, the learned Courts did not err in dismissing the suit filed by
the plaintiff as his contractual services had came to an end by
efflux of time as per the terms of the contract.
Since, the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the
learned Courts have not been shown to be suffering from any
[2023:RJ-JP:31586] (5 of 5) [CSA-443/2019]
illegality, infirmity, perversity or jurisdictional error so as to
warrant interference of this Court under Section 100 CPC, the civil
second appeal is dismissed being devoid of merit.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J
Sudha/53
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
