RAJENDRAKUMAR GOVINDLAL RAVAL Vs. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsels appearing for the parties. The applicant, who happens to be respondent no.1 in S.C.A. No.10929 of 2014, has taken out this application for following prayers;

(2.) Facts in brief, as could be gathered from the Civil Application as well as main petition, would indicate that the applicant's services came to be terminated vide order dated 23.12.2013 pursuant to departmental inquiry held against him and holding him guilty of the charges levelled against him. However, there was a reference pending in respect of the dispute qua transfer from one circle to other circle.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the Court's order, whereunder the interim relief is not granted, needs to be construed appropriately so as to compel the petitioner to abide by the provision of law, and either reinstate the workman or pay full wages to him, as in light of the established provision of law, the workman is to be treated as continuous in service.