DINESHKUMAR HIMATLAL NIMAVAT Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Revision Application the petitioner has challenged the order dated 30/04/1987 passed by the learned Joint District Judge Jamnagar allowing the appeal of the present respondents State of Gujarat and Another setting aside the judgment and order dated 7-10-1986 passed by the learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge (S D.) Jamnagar. It is the petitioners case that he has been serving as work-charge employee since 1/04/1981 According to him he has been given employment for 28 or 29 days every month for a period of about four years with the artificial breaks of one or two days between the two periods of 28 or 29 days. He has stated that the appointment orders were usually given to him long after the work commenced and ended for those periods of 28 or 29 days. Now his services are sought to be terminated. Hence he filed the present suit to obtain injunction restraining the respondents from terminating his service. The learned trial Judge granted the interim relief prayed for and directed the respondents to continue the present petitioner in service. The Court also granted injunction restraining the present respondents from interfering with the petitioner performing his duty and getting his pay and allowances till the final disposal of the suit.

(2.) The present respondents challenged the order of the trial Court before the lower appellate Court who allowed the appeal on the ground that the present petitioner was not in service on the day of filing of suit. Hence according to the appellate Court the present petitioner was not entitled to get the interim relief prayed for by him and granted by the trial Court.

(3.) Mr. M. S. Shah learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that the lower appellate Court was not justified in holding that the present petitioner was not in service 05 the date of the suit. According to Mr. shah the lower appellate Court has only looked at the order of termination of service which purports to be of a date about six months prior to the filing of the suit. Mr. Shah has also urged that the present petitioner was actually working till the suit was filed although the order of termination bears the earlier date. In his submission the order of termination like earlier orders of appointments every month were issued subsequently but carried the earlier dates. He therefore submits that the trial Court was fully justified in granting the interim relief prayed for and that the lower appellate Court was not justified in reversing the said order and allowing the appeal of the present respondents.