# Plaintiff v. Pravin Kumar Garg and others

- **Citation:** (2003) 1 ILRA 138
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2003-02-07
- **Case number:** Civil Revision No. 135 of 2003
- **Bench:** A.K. Yog
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/plaintiff-v-pravin-kumar-garg-and-others-39905
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Code of Civil Procedure- Order 17 r. 2-
Plaintiff and his counsel remained absent
on
the
date
fixed-
Trial
court
by
impugned order directed the defendant
to lead evidence- order set a side
provided the plaintiff deposits Rs.5000/-
with the trial court which shall be
withdrawn by the caveator respondent-
son of the plaintiff being advocate
unnecessarily delaying the proceeding of
court- suit for partition pending since
1991- court held the plaintiff/revisionist
guilty for abusing the process of court.

Held- Para 4

In view of the fair stand taken by the
defendant- respondent before me and
the cumulative circumstances of the case
as well as in the interest of justice I
quash the judgment and order dated
3.1.2003. The original suit shall be
restored to its original number and heard
by the court below on the date fixed by
the trial court on receiving certified copy
of this judgment. The above order is,
however, subject to the condition that
the plaintiff deposits a sum of Rs.5000/-
before the trial court on the next date
fixed by the said court, as otherwise this
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1All] Hari Kishan V. Pravin Kumar Garg and others 139
order shall have no consequence and the
suit shall be treated to be dismissed
without
further
opportunity
to
the
plaintiff to ask for restoration of the
same. The aforesaid amount can be
withdrawn
by
the
defendant/caveator(applicant).
The
certified copy of the judgement shall be
presented before the trial court within
20
days
from
today.
The
caveator/applicant
may
inform
the
court, if possible, today for seeking a
short date in the suit

## Text

http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
138 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
G.O. dated 9.4.80 was issued containing
draft service rules.

Rejoinder Affidavit has also been
filed and we have perused the same.

6. In Direct Recruit Class II
Engineering Officers Association Versus
State of Maharashtra AIR 1960 SC 1607
it was held by the Supreme Court that
seniority has to be counted from the date
of appointment and not according to the
date of confirmation.

7. In our opinion this decision
squarely applies to the facts of the present
case. Admittedly the petitioner was
appointed as Assistant Engineer on
18.1.83 when the Service Rules 1993 had
not come into force. Subsequently he was
confirmed also . It is settled law that
seniority is to be counted from the date of
continuous officiating on the post in view
of the above decision of the Supreme
Court.

8. Following the said decision, this
writ petition is allowed. The impugned
order dated 26.12.2000 is quashed. The
respondents are directed to fix petitioner's
seniority with effect from the date of his
initial appointment on 18.1.83. The
seniority
list
shall
be
rectified
accordingly.
---------
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.02.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE A.K. YOG, J.

Civil Revision No. 135 of 2003

Hari Kishan

...Plaintiff
Versus
Pravin Kumar Garg and others

 ...Defendants

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Arjun Singhal

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Sri Ram Mohan
Sri Niraj Pandey

Code of Civil Procedure- Order 17 r. 2-
Plaintiff and his counsel remained absent
on
the
date
fixed-
Trial
court
by
impugned order directed the defendant
to lead evidence- order set a side
provided the plaintiff deposits Rs.5000/-
with the trial court which shall be
withdrawn by the caveator respondent-
son of the plaintiff being advocate
unnecessarily delaying the proceeding of
court- suit for partition pending since
1991- court held the plaintiff/revisionist
guilty for abusing the process of court.

Held- Para 4

In view of the fair stand taken by the
defendant- respondent before me and
the cumulative circumstances of the case
as well as in the interest of justice I
quash the judgment and order dated
3.1.2003. The original suit shall be
restored to its original number and heard
by the court below on the date fixed by
the trial court on receiving certified copy
of this judgment. The above order is,
however, subject to the condition that
the plaintiff deposits a sum of Rs.5000/-
before the trial court on the next date
fixed by the said court, as otherwise this
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1All] Hari Kishan V. Pravin Kumar Garg and others 139
order shall have no consequence and the
suit shall be treated to be dismissed
without
further
opportunity
to
the
plaintiff to ask for restoration of the
same. The aforesaid amount can be
withdrawn
by
the
defendant/caveator(applicant).
The
certified copy of the judgement shall be
presented before the trial court within
20
days
from
today.
The
caveator/applicant
may
inform
the
court, if possible, today for seeking a
short date in the suit

(Delivered by Hon'ble A.K. Yog, J.)

1. Heard Sri Arjun Singhal on behalf
of the plaintiff- revisionist and Sri Ram
Mohan, Advocate holding brief of Sri
Niraj Pandey, Advocate, learned counsel
appearing
for
contesting
defendant-
respondent no. 2.

2.

Learned
counsel
for
the
respondent no. 2 pointed out to trial
court's
order
dated
12.2.2002
and
appellate order dated 7.9.2002 to show
that the plaintiff is not a bonafide litigant
and he has been guilty of not pursuing
litigation promptly and there by abusing
the process of the court and harassing the
defendant.

3. It may be noted that the present
revision arises out of original suit no. 400
of 1991 which has been filed for partition.
Learned counsel for the revisionist admits
that the son of the plaintiff-revisionist is
an Advocate. This Court takes judicial
notice of the fact that whenever an
Advocate is involved in the litigation, he
takes to his head that the court and
judicial process is in his pocket. This
cannot be tolerated. I am convinced that
the plaintiff is guilty of abusing the
process of the court. The suit relates to the
year 1991 but the plaintiff has not carried
it bonafide. In view of the above, this
court would have refused to interfere in
exercise of the jurisdiction conferred
under section 115 C.P.C. I am of the view
that the impugned judgment and order
dated 3.1.2003, directing the defendant to
led evidence, once the court has came to
the conclusion that there was no evidence
lead on behalf of the plaintiff and that he
was absent, the impugned order cannot be
sustained in view of the provision of order
17 rule 2 CPC. The plaintiff and his
counsel being absent and no evidence
having been led on behalf of the plaintiff,
the court below should have dismissed the
suit in default.

4. In view of the fair stand taken by
the defendant- respondent before me and
the cumulative circumstances of the case
as well as in the interest of justice I quash
the judgment and order dated 3.1.2003.
The original suit shall be restored to its
original number and heard by the court
below on the date fixed by the trial court
on receiving certified copy of this
judgment. The above order is, however,
subject to the condition that the plaintiff
deposit a sum of Rs.5000/- before the trial
court on the next date fixed by the said
court, as otherwise this order shall have
no consequence and the suit shall be
treated to be dismissed without further
opportunity to the plaintiff to ask for
restoration of the same. The aforesaid
amount can be withdrawn by the
defendant/caveator(applicant).
The
certified copy of the judgement shall be
presented before the trial court within 20
days from today. The caveator/applicant
may inform the court, if possible, today
for seeking a short date in the suit.
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
140 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
5. The revision stands disposed of
subject to the above observations and
directions.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10 FEBRUARY, 2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J.
THE HON'BLE PRAKASH KRISHNA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 22246 of 2002

R.B.S. Chauhan

...Petitioner
Versus
Reserve Bank of India and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri V.B. Singh
Sri Vijay Sinha

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri S.N. Verma
Sri Sharad Verma
Sri Yashwant Verma

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226-
compulsorily
Retirement-
Petitioner
working as Assistant Treasurer- in cash
department- made sexual harassment to
senior ladies officer- after full fledged
enquiry the disciplinary authority taken
the decision- can not be interfered by
High Court.

Held- Para 10

In Apparel Export Promotion Council v.
A.K. Chopra (supra) the Supreme Court
held that in a case of sexual harassment
for the offending action to be outrageous
actual assault or touch by the offender is
not essential. Objectionable overtures
with sexual overtone is enough.
Case law discussed:
1997 (6) SCC 241
AIR 1999 SC-625

(Delivered by Hon'ble M. Katju, J.)

1. This writ petition has been filed
for a writ of certiorari to quash the
impugned order dated 7.5.2002 Annexure
7 to the writ petition by which the
petitioner has been compulsorily retired.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner was selected in the
service of Reserve Bank of India vide
appointment letter, copy of which is
Annexure 2 to the writ petition, and he
was granted promotions vide Annexures
3,4 and 5 to the writ petition. It is stated in
paragraph 10 of the petition that the
petitioner's retirement age is 60 years but
he has been compulsorily retired at the
age of 55 1⁄2 years. The relevant extract of
the
relevant
Rule
providing
for
compulsorily retirement is Annexure 8 to
the writ petition.

The
regulation
26
of
RBI(Staff)
Regulation 1948 states-

"26. (1) An employee shall retire at
60 years of age but no extension shall be
given to any employee beyond 60 years of
age.

Provided that an employee who
attains the age of superannuation on any
day other than first during a calendar
month, shall retire on the last day of that
month:

Superannuation and Retirement

Provided further that in the case of
an employee in Class IV who has reached
the age of 55 years the Bank may, in its
discretion, retire him after giving two
month's notice in writing if in the opinion