P L D 1954 Sind 288 (PLP)

MUHAMMAD BAKHSH, J.‑The plaintiff has filed this suit in forma pauperis against the Federation of Pakistan. He has prayed for several reliefs which I will presently state. His case was that on partition he was employed as a Head Clerk in the office of the Director of Posts and Telegraphs, Karachi, where he took charge on 6th December, 1947. He had to serve up to 60 years of age. He reached the age of 55 years on 8th March, 1948. Suddenly on 27th March, 1948, he was given orders to relinquish his post. Six months thereafter on 22nd September, 1948, he was given intimation about the orders passed in his case and he was asked to submit his pension papers. The plaintiff made several representations alleging that his retirement was illegal and ultra vires but he was not listened to. He therefore filed the present suit. In para. 15 he has set forth his prayers. This para. is reproduced below :‑ "That the plaintiff prays for the following reliefs. (i) That the plaintiff may be allowed to sue in forma pauperis. (ii) That the order of the defendant per Memorandum No. Staff/W‑19, dated 22nd September, 1948, from the Director of Posts and Telegraphs, Karachi retiring, the plain tiff from service be declared as arbitrary, illegal, unjust and invalid and the Honourable Court be pleased to reinstate the plaintiff in service on proper post. (iii) That the Honourable Court be pleased to award the plaintiff Rs. 15,755 as full pay and allowances from 28th March, 19.48, or from any other date as it is deemed fit and proper. (iv) That the Honourable Court be further pleased to pass a decree for Rs. 10,000 or any other sum that may be considered reasonable and proper as damages for unnecessary mental worry, loss and suffering caused to the plaintiff. (v) That decree for entire cost of the suit be passed in favour of the plaintiff. (vi) That any other reliefs to which the plaintiff is deemed to be entitled be kindly granted to him". The defendant denied all the allegations of the plaintiff alleging inter alia that the plaintiff had no cause of action, that the notice under section 80, C. P. C., was improper and that the orders passed by the defendant were legal and proper. On these pleadings the following issues were settled :‑ (1) Has any cause of action accrued to the plaintiff for the suit ? (2) Is the notice under section 80, C. P. C., invalid ? (3) Is the order of the defendant (dated 22nd September, 1948) retiring the plaintiff from service, illegal and invalid and is the plaintiff entitled to be reinstated to his post ? (4) Is the plaintiff entitled to get his full pay and usual allowance ; if so, at what rate, for what length of time and how much ? (5) Has the plaintiff suffered any loss and trouble because of his wrongful and illegal removal from service and is he entitled to any compensation for mental worry, loss and sufferings ; if so, how much ? (6) Is the plaintiff entitled to a decree ; if so, for what amount ? (7) General. By consent of parties issue No. 2 has been taken up as a preliminary issue I have heard the advocates' arguments and I give my finding on this issue in the affirmative. Under section 80 of the C. P. C., it was the duty of the plaintiff to intimate clearly and specifically to the defendant among other things about the nature of relief which he claimed. I have already reproduced above para. 15 of the plaint which relates to the various reliefs claimed by the plaintiff. It is very necessary to reproduce the relevant portion of the notice under section 80 served by the plaintiff on the defendant. The last para. 14 of this notice is relevant to this issue. It runs as under :‑ "That in claiming relief on behalf of our client, we call upon you to (1) reinstate him in his proper post, (2) treat the period of his forced absence from office as spent on duty and counted towards leave, promotion, increment, pension, etc., in the light of F. R. 54, (3) pay him his arrear salary and (4) grant him compensation amounting to Rs. 10,000 (Rupees ten thousand) for unnecessary mental worries and physical trouble sustained by him and his dependents, loss of education and prospects of his sons, etc.; within two months of the receipt of this notice failing which we have instruction from our client to file a suit in a Court of competent jurisdiction against the Federation of Pakistan for the recovery of the legitimate dues of our client and the removal of his grievances described above which please note." It will be seen from this notice that the plaintiff never intimated to the defendant that he was going to challenge the legality, propriety, validity and justness of the order dated 22nd September, 1948. This is the most fundamental question involved in the case and unless a finding on this point is' given in favour of the plaintiff, it is patent that he will not be entitled to any of the reliefs claimed by him in his notice. The learned advocate for the plaintiff realised this difficulty and argued that the Government knew what case they had to meet at the hearing. I do not think this is the correct way of looking at things. The Government have got to be informed very clearly and definitely about the relief which a partyi seeks to claim. The Government have got to study the notice and interpret the implications thereof. The purpose of section 80 is to enable the Government to understand the case and meet it properly. The learned advocate for the plaintiff, has relied on Mulla's Commentary under section 80 at page 305 of the latest edition. I do not agree that the cases referred to in that paragraph are relevant to the present case. In this very Commentary a reference is made to 52 C W N 212 which says that where there are several prayers in a plaint the suit is good if the notice embodies only those reliefs which are claimed against the public officer. In the present case reverse is the case. Here the notice does not embody the most important and fundamental relief claimed by the plaintiff as I have stated above. In view of these reasons I hold that the notice under section 80 is not proper. In view of my finding on issue No. 2, the whole suit will fail. I accordingly dismiss the suit. Looking to the circumstances of the plaintiff I make no order as to costs. A. H. Suit dismissed.