Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Choudhari Mohd. Abdul Kadar, was appointed as a Junior Clerk in the Udgir Municipal Council on 13 January 1970. He alleged that in 1985, two employees junior to him were promoted to Senior Clerk, and he challenged this by filing an appeal before the Additional Commissioner. The appeal was dismissed in 1986. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a civil suit which was dismissed in 1990. He then filed a complaint before the Industrial Court, which was also dismissed in 1992. Meanwhile, on 29 July 2004, the Municipal Council passed Resolution No. 29 compulsorily retiring the petitioner, and a notice of compulsory retirement was issued on 31 July 2004. The petitioner challenged these actions by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to quash the resolution and notice, and also seeking promotion to the post of Senior Clerk with effect from 21 March 1985 and other consequential benefits. The court considered the long history of litigation between the parties and noted that the petitioner had not been diligent in pursuing his claims. The court held that the claim for promotion was barred by delay and laches as it was filed nearly 19 years after the alleged cause of action. Regarding the compulsory retirement, the court found that the petitioner had an alternative remedy by way of approaching the civil court or industrial court, and therefore, the writ petition was not maintainable. The court also observed that the petitioner failed to establish any legal right to continue in service beyond the age of superannuation. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Compulsory Retirement - Validity - Petitioner challenged resolution and notice of compulsory retirement - Court held that the petitioner failed to establish any legal right to continue in service beyond the age of superannuation and that the compulsory retirement was validly ordered as per service rules (Paras 1-10).
B) Service Law - Promotion - Delay and Laches - Petitioner sought promotion from 1985 but filed writ petition in 2004 - Court held that the claim is barred by delay and laches and that the petitioner did not pursue the matter diligently (Paras 3-8).
C) Service Law - Alternative Remedy - Petitioner had alternative remedy of approaching the civil court or industrial court - Court held that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should not be exercised when alternative remedy is available (Paras 9-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner is entitled to quash the resolution and notice of compulsory retirement, and whether he is entitled to promotion to the post of Senior Clerk and other consequential benefits.
Final Decision
Writ petition dismissed with no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Compulsory retirement
- Promotion
- Service law
- Writ jurisdiction
- Delay and laches
- Alternative remedy
- Res judicata
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (10) 17
Writ Petition No.5610 of 2004
V.R. Kingaonkar, A.V. Potdar
Mr. M.S. Choudhari for petitioner, Mrs. B.R. Khekale for respondent State, Mr. P.V. Barde for respondent no.1 and 2
Choudhari Mohd. Abdul Kadar
The Chief Officer, Municipal Council Udgir; The President, Municipal Council Udgir; The District Collector, Dist. Latur; The Divisional Commissioner and The Regional Director of Municipal Administration, Aurangabad; The State of Maharashtra
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging compulsory retirement and seeking promotion and other service benefits.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of resolution no.29 dated 29/07/2004 and notice of compulsory retirement dated 31/07/2004, direction for promotion to Senior Clerk w.e.f. 21/03/1985, grant of two days leave, and inquiry against respondents.
Filing Reason
Petitioner was compulsorily retired by resolution and notice, and he alleged that he was denied promotion despite being senior to others.
Previous Decisions
Petitioner's appeal against promotion was dismissed in 1986, civil suit dismissed in 1990, and complaint before Industrial Court dismissed in 1992.
Issues
Whether the resolution and notice of compulsory retirement are liable to be quashed?
Whether the petitioner is entitled to promotion to the post of Senior Clerk w.e.f. 21/03/1985 and other consequential benefits?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that he was senior to employees promoted in 1985 and that the compulsory retirement was illegal.
Respondents contended that the petitioner had alternative remedy and that the claims were barred by delay and laches.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the petitioner failed to establish any legal right to promotion and that the claim was barred by delay and laches. Further, the petitioner had an alternative remedy against the compulsory retirement, and therefore, the writ petition was not maintainable.
Judgment Excerpts
By the present writ petition, under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, the petitioner has approached this Court for the reliefs in terms of prayer clause (B) to (E)...
It appears that rule was issued in this writ petition on 14/09/2004.
Before considering the submissions... it is necessary to consider the chequered history of long litigation between the petitioner and respondent no.1 and 2...
Procedural History
Petitioner appointed as Jr. Clerk on 13/01/1970. In 1985, two juniors promoted to Senior Clerk. Petitioner filed appeal in 1985 which was dismissed in 1986. Civil suit filed and dismissed in 1990. Complaint before Industrial Court dismissed in 1992. On 29/07/2004, resolution for compulsory retirement passed, notice issued on 31/07/2004. Writ petition filed on 14/09/2004 and rule issued. Judgment pronounced on 27/10/2010.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226
