LAWS(GJH)-1995-7-52

BHANMATI TAPUBHAI MULIYA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

Decided On July 28, 1995
BHANMATI TAPUBHAI MULIYA Appellant
V/S
STATE OF GUJARAT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) hoc basis in November, 1984. It was further clarified in the appointment order that her appointment was only upto 31st of July, 1985.

(2.) Before 31st of July, 1985, the appellant filed a suit before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gondal and was successful in obtaining an interim injunction. After a period of 8 years, the suit was dismissed on 28th of April, 1993 and an appeal was filed. This appeal was dismissed and thereafter, the present writ petition has been filed which has been dismissed by the learned single Judge and against which the present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed.

(3.) In our opinion, the Civil Court initially was wrong in granting an injunction in the year 1985, when the appointment of the appellant was for a fixed period only, i.e., upto 31st July, 1985. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that in some other cases, relief has been granted, with or without the help of the Courts. Merely because wrong orders may have been passed in other cases can be no ground for allowing an illegality to be continued. The appointment of the appellant was, admittedly, for a fixed period, i.e., upto 31st of July, 1985 and by ordering a status quo to be maintained, the civil Court has, in fact, extended the period of appointment beyond 31st of July, 1985, a jurisdiction which no Court can have. In matters like this, viz., termination of service or suspension, it has been repeatedly held by the Supreme Court that interim injunction should not be readily granted. The principle behind this is very simple, viz., that if the suit is dismissed, can restitution be ordered ? Obviously, if the period of appointment could not be extended beyond 31st of July, 1985, the question of any restitution being ordered with the vacation of injunction cannot arise. On the other hand, if injunction had been refused but ultimately, the plaintiff had succeeded, the Court would always order restitution, by awarding back wages, interest and promotions, in appropriate cases.