Shri Surya Prakash Shukla v. Vivekananda Kendra Vidyalaya And ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION [ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** CO/26/2022 Shri Surya Prakash Shukla Vs.

Vivekananda Kendra Vidyalaya and others Ms. Anjili Nag ... for the petitioner Mr. KMB Jayapal ... for the respondents January 18, 2023 [SR] Item No.4 Ms. Anjili Nag, learned advocate, while assailing two impugned orders dated 26th March, 2021 and 19th April, 2022 passed in OS. No.159 of 2011 of learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, at Port Blair, submits that when there has been a specific averment taken in the pleadings submitted by the plaintiff himself that the original appointment letter issued by the appropriate authority concerned has already been misplaced, there cannot be any further direction requiring the petitioner/plaintiff to produce the original appointment letter, being oblivious of the para-6 of the plaint.

Mrs. Nag, contends that the illegal termination of the petitioner/plaintiff is under challenge in the pending litigation, wherein the prayer proposed in the suit is yet to be decided. The proposed prayers profitably may be set out here-in-below.

"a) A decree declaring that the plaintiff is an employee of Vivekananda Kendriya Vidyalaya holding the post of Branch in charge.

b) A decree declaring the termination order purported to have been issued against the plaintiff to be null and void.

c) A decree directing the defendants to allow the plaintiff to attend his duties and work as before and release his salary as before.

d) A decree against the defendants for release of arrears of salary to the plaintiff from July 2004 till date which would come to 45,000/-.

e) A decree against the defendants for paying damages for an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards the mental agony sustained by the plaintiff.

f) A decree against the defendants for all costs of the suit.

g) A decree against the defendants for such further or other relief which the plaintiffs may be found entitled."

It is thus submitted by Mrs.Nag that pending adjudication of the controversy, with regard to the order of appointment and illegal termination being effected, as against the petitioner/plaintiff, the petitioner/plaintiff may not be required to produce the original appointment letter, which already got misplaced and that has been specifically disclosed in para-6 of the plaint.

Per contra, Mr.KMB Jayapal, learned advocate for the respondents, taking reference to the para-7 of the written statement, submits that issuance of the appointment letter is under challenge in the pending litigation, and there has been defense put up in the written statement, already submitted by the opposite parties/defendants, to the effect that the petitioner was never engaged as an employee, but the petitioner used to render voluntary service to the society, being the follower and sympathizer to the cause of the

society, and the society used to pay remuneration from time to time for his maintenance.

It is thus submitted by Mr. Jayapal that unless the original appointment letter is produced before the Trial Court, there may not be any effective adjudication of the controversy, presented before the Court below. In reply, Mrs. Nag submits that the validity of the appointment letter issued by the concerned authority, may be decided in context with the evidence already adduced together with a copy of the appointment letter already produced before the Court below at the first instance, as per provisions of law.

Having considered the submissions of both sides, it appears that issuance of an appointment letter in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff is under challenge in the pending litigation. Admittedly, evidence has been adduced by both the parties to the case. Bearing in mind the averments disclosed in para 6 of the plaint, vis-a-viz denial of the appointment letter issued in favour of the petitioner, disclosed in para 7 of the written statement, this Court is of the view that there is hardly any scope for production of the original appointment letter, if any, issued, when there has been specific averment disclosed in para 6 of the plaint. No further elaboration is felt necessary on the issue presented before this Court pertaining to the non-production of the original appointment letter.

The revisional application stands disposed of upon setting aside the impugned orders, permitting parties to agitate the issues at the time of final hearing of the suit, and the points to be raised by the parties to this case, may be resolved in accordance with law by the Court below, after taking into account regarding the explanation, if any, disclosed during the trial regarding non-production of the original appointment letter, apart from the specific averment taken in para 6 of the plaint.

Since the matter has been set for argument, the logical conclusion of the suit may be reached expeditiously, subject to the suitability and convenience of the Trial Court, without granting unnecessary adjournment, unless extremely unavoidable, preferably within eight weeks from the date of communication of this order.

It is further clarified that the Trial Court is expected to reach an independent and own decision without being influenced by any observation made hereinabove. ( Subhasis Dasgupta, J. )