The Division Bench dismissed the appellant's appeal challenging a retirement order, holding that the matter was barred by res judicata as the writ petition, review petition, and subsequent suit were already dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
app-125-14
Uday Kambli
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
APPEAL NO.125 OF 2014
IN SUIT NO.1713 OF 2002
… Anand Govind Bhide ...Appellant
v/s.
Reserve Bank of India, Mumbai ...Respondent
Appellant in person. None for respondent.
CORAM: MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & M.S.SONAK, J. DATE : 11 AUGUST 2014
P.C.:
The appellant was an officer to the Reserve Bank of India. When the appellant was about to complete age of 58 years, his case alongwith cases of other officers was taken up by the Review Committee for continuation in service beyond 58 years of age. After reviewing the case, the Review Committee decided not to recommend the appellant's case for continuation beyond 58 years of age. Accordingly, the appellant retired on completion of 58 years of age on 30 September 1997.
1 of 4
2
app-125-14
Uday Kambli
“... … … … We called for the original file and, and after its perusal, we are satisfied that a committee, comprising of high level officers headed by the Governor, four Deputy Governors and other senior officers of the Reserve Bank of India had reviewed several cases, including the case of the petitioner, for continuation in service beyond 58 years. The committee has given reasons in each case as to why such continuation should or should not be granted. On an overall reading of the file, we are not satisfied that the Reserve Bank of India acted contrary to law or to the applicable circulars on the subject while reviewing the case of the petitioner. We cannot forget that judicial review of administrative orders extends only to the decision making process, and not the decision itself. We have no jurisdiction to sit in appeal over the assessment of the petitioner by his superior officers which we must respect and accept.
2 of 4
3
app-125-14
Uday Kambli
3 of 4
4
app-125-14
Uday Kambli
8. Appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
CHIEF JUSTICE
(M.S.SONAK, J.)
4 of 4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Court can exercise inherent powers under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code to entertain an appeal challenging an order not granting extension of service.
Whether res judicata bars the current appeal given previous dismissal of the writ petition, review petition, and a suit.
Uday Kambli
Reserve Bank of India, Mumbai
MOHIT S. SHAH
M.S. SONAK
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
