BHAGVANJI LALJIBHAI PARMAR Vs. DISTRICT PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the Courts below have not found it to be a fit case for grant of interim relief in favour of the plaintiff-petitioner.

(2.) . It is not in dispute that the plaintiff-petitioner has been given appointment only on daily wages and daily wagers have no right to the post and if their services are dispensed with I have my own reservation whether at this stage requirement of giving of notice has to be followed or not but one thing is clear that he has been discharged from service and whether discharge of is legal or not, the matter is pending for adjudication in the suit by the Trial Court after taking evidence of both the parties.

(3.) . Time and again, the Apex Court has given a note of caution to the Courts particularly the High Courts that by way of interim relief, relief which is to be granted by the Court at the final stage of the suit when the plaintiff proves his case, should not be granted. The Apex Court has also observed that ultimately in the case, the Court may grant or may not grant the relief as prayed for in the suit, and as such, if any interim relief is granted which results in granting of the substantial or final relief, the Courts should resist themselves from granting such a relief. In this respect, reference may have to the following decisions of the Apex Court. (i) State of U.P. vs. Vishveshwar, 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 590. (ii) Bank of Maharashtra vs. Race Shipping and Trans Comp., AIR 1995 SC 1368. (iii) Commndt./Sec. Govt. H&M Ed. Deptt. vs. Ashok K. Kohli, 1995 Supp. (4) SCC 214.