ASWINI KUMAR DAS Vs. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these revisions were heard analogously as questions of fact and law involved in both are practically the same. Both these revisions arise out of a common order passed by the District Judge, Balasore.

(2.) PETITIONER is a workman initially appointed by the Superintending Engineer, Electrical Circle, Rourkela in the year 1973 - and on his representation he was placed at the disposal of the Superintending Engineer, Electrical Circle, Balasore. The Petitioner thereafter had been working under the Executive Engineer, Balasore Electrical Division. The Superintending Engineer, Electrical Division, Balasore transferred the Petitioner by order dt. 17 -7 -1985 to Baripada Electrical Division and before the Petitioner ; as relieved he remained on leave from 18 -7 -1985 to 22 -7 -1985. While on leave, he filed a suit in the court of Munsif, Balasore and obtained an ex parte order of injunction on 22 -7 -1985, restraining the opp. party not to give effect to the transfer as per the order passed in that behalf. The order of injunction was made absolute on 22 -11 -1985 by the same court. The present opp. party (Defendant in the suit) went up in appeal. The appellate court allowed the appeal and vacated the injunction by its judgment dt. 4 -2 -1986. The Petitioner came upto this Court in Civil Revision No. 898/86, which was not admitted, but was disposed of on 21 -2 -1986 with a directing that the suit be disposed of within six months from the date of the order. The Petitioner has alleged that after the injunction was vacated, he has joined the post to which he was transferred on 24 -2 -1986.

(3.) THE periods for which the Petitioner claimed wages are covered by the order of injunction passed by the Munsif in the suit in which the Petitioner challenged his order of transfer. As already stated, the ex parte order of injunction was made absolute by the Munsif which was vacated in appeal. Therefore, the order of transfer remained suspended during the period when the injunction order was in force. It, therefore, follows that during the continuance of the order of injunction the Petitioner was permitted by the court to continue in the same post which he was holding prior to the order of transfer. Consequently, the Petitioner's not joining the post to which he was transferred cannot be held to be unauthorised because of the protection granted by the court. In this view of the matter the conclusion would be irresistible that the Petitioner was entitled to his wages covered by the period during which the injunction was in force.