Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Appeal No. 72 of 1975, decided on 17th January 1976
‑ S. 6‑Reversion of Civil Servant held illegal by civil Court‑Appeal filed by Department ‑ Civil Servant retiring meanwhile ‑Appeal, in circumstances, held, became in fructuous.
Abdul Sattar G. Shaikh, Asstt., A.- G. for Appellant.
.‑‑A. A.‑G. for appellant called absent. Respondent called absent as be has sent telegram that he has retired from service. A. A.G. wanted to ascertain whether the respondent has really retired. He has failed to make such statement or send any intimation. The cause of action alleged in the memo of appeal and in the Civil Suit was regarding the reversion of the respondent. The civil Court had held that the appellant was wrongly reverted and had accordingly decreed the suit of the respondent. The appellant filed appeal before the High Court which abated on 7‑8-4. Since the respondent has retired from service, his question of reversion cannot be agitated now in this appeal. There will also be no difference in pension of the respondent because it will be calculated on the pay drawn by him, for the last 3 years. The record shows that be has acted as Mukhtiarkar for 3 years before he retired. No useful purpose would therefore be served if the appeal is pressed further.
(Note. At this stage A. A.‑G. turns up and says that the respondent has really retired from service). Under such circumstances the appeal is dismissed as in fructuous.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer