UNION OF INDIA Vs. M.K.C. KUTTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent -plaintiff joined Central Railway (the then G.I.P.) as wireless operator on October 11, 1945, after serving in the Navy, and was confirmed therein on January 1, 1946. By an order dated February 24, 1972, he was compulsorily retired with effect from May 24, 1972 under Rule 2046(ii)(H) of the Indian Railway Establishment Code, Volume II, on attaining the age of fifty -five on May 9% 1972. The suit, giving rise to this appeal, is instituted for declaring that the order dated February 24, 1972, is mala fide and, therefore, void and ultra vires, and consequentially for restraining the defendants, Union of India, etc., from giving effect to the same. He also claims a decree for Rs. 24,500 for the alleged monetary loss due to withholding his promotions maliciously and unlawfully. According to the plaintiff, he has been a victim of harassment, since before he was unlawfully dismissed in 1949, which dismissal was declared void on January 28, 1957 in Suit No. 488 of 1953. He was posted to an inconvenient place on reinstatement, his promotion was withheld, and juniors allowed to supersede him. He was denied free railway fare. False charges were framed against him from time to time, impairing his confidential records and his date of birth was falsely shown as May 9, 1917 instead of May 9, 1920 by interpolating the service record to trot out an excuse for compulsorily retiring him under the quoted Rule. This is how the impugned order is claimed by him to be mala fide and outside the rules quoted, and therefore, void. Plaint does not indicate how the monetary claim has been calculated.

(2.) THE plaintiff then also took out a Notice of Motion on August 11, 1972, for an interim injunction restraining the defendants from giving effect to the impugned order. Ad -interim injunction was granted and made absolute finally by the learned trial Judge by his order dated November 21, 1972. Legality of this order is challenged in this appeal.

(3.) SECONDLY , the powers of the Court in the matter of interim injunctions are regulated by the Civil Procedure Code and not by the provisions of the Specific Relief Act. It is equally well -settled that Court has inherent powers to grant injunction under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, even if a particular case does not fall under Section 94 read with Order XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure. It would be enough to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Manohar Lai v. Seth Hiralal : AIR1962SC527 .