Haryana State and Another vs Raj Kumar

Arun B. Saharya, C.J.—In this revision petition the State of Haryana has challenged order dated April 16, 1992, made by the Additional District Judge, Rewari, setting aside in appeal order of the trial court dated January 13, 1992, directing that the plaintiff be taken back in service forthwith and further restraining the defendants from terminating the plaintiffs service till the decision of the suit.

The plaintiff had filed the suit for permanent injunction for restraining the State Government from terminating his service except in accordance with law. In the plaint, he claimed that he was employed by the State Government as a master on payment of Rs. 500/- p.m. as salary and apprehended termination of services without notice or recourse to known procedure of law. On his application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, Civil Procedure Code, ad interim stay was granted by the trial Court on September 31, 1981. Later, the trial Court found that the plaintiff was being paid tuition fees of Rs. 500/- p.m., it held prima facie that he was not an employee of the State Government, and dismissed his application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, Civil Procedure Code. Aggrieved by this order, he preferred an appeal which has been allowed by the Additional District Judge, Rewari, by the impugned order dated April 16, 1992.

The learned Additional District Judge reversed the findings of the trial Court and allowed the plaintiffs appeal. He has found prima facie that the plaintiff was receiving salary of Rs. 500/- p.m. and that he had already completed 240 days in service. Moreover, the stand taken by the State Government in the written statement that the plaintiffs service were terminated on the abolition of the Handloom Centre on account of lack of funds was found to be without substance, as the Handloom Centre where he was employed was still functioning. Therefore, the order of the trial Court was set aside. Since the services of the plaintiff had been terminated by the State Government after ad-interim stay was granted by the trial Court on September 21, 1991, the appellate Court directed reinstatement of the plaintiff in service, and restrained the defendants from terminating his services till the decision of the suit.

It is stated at the Bar that the trial of the suit is at an advanced stage. The plaintiff had concluded his evidence on December 7, 1997 and, according to the learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent, trial is being hampered as the State Government has taken three adjournments for producing its evidence in the suit.

The prima facie finding on facts recorded in the impugned order is based upon appreciation of the pleadings of the parties and the material laid before the subordinate court. I find no illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order, which has been passed in appeal in exercise of jurisdiction under Order 43, Rule 1(r), Civil Procedure Code. It would be unfair and unjust to throw the plaintiff-respondent out of employment after he has continued in service till now. No ground is made out under clause (b) of the proviso for interference u/s 115, Civil Procedure Code.

It would, however, serve the interest of justice if the defendant State Government is bound down to conclude its evidence within the next three months. It is expected that the trial Court will finally dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible.

With the above observations, the revision petition is dismissed. No costs.