MOHINDER SINGH Vs. PUNJAB STATE AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order of the Additional District Judge, Amritsar, dated Oct. 23, 1989, whereby the order of the trial Court dated June 29, 1989, granting ad interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff was vacated.

(2.) The plaintiff Mohinder Singh filed the suit for declaration as well as for injunction regarding the date of his birth. According to him, his date of birth is June 24, 1934, whereas in the service book, his date of birth is mentioned as June 24,1931. According to the said service book entry, the plaintiff was to retire in June 1989. He filed the suit in the year 1989, challenging the said date of birth as well as for injunction that he be not retired on due date. Along with the suit, he also moved an application under Order XXXIX rules 1 and 2, Code of Civil Procedure, restraining the defendants from retiring him from service with effect from June 30, 1989. The said application was contested on behalf of the defendant-State. The trial Court found that the plaintiff could not be retired with effect from June 30, 1989, as he had not yet attained the age of superannuation. It was also found that the plaintiff had a prima facie case and the comparative balance of convenience lay in his favour. Consequently, the defendant State was restrained from retiring him with effect from June 30,1989. In appeal the learned Appellate Authority reversed the said finding and came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had got equally efficacious remedy available to him. He could challenge the order of his retirement as and when he is retired from the service on the ground that he has not attained the age of superannuation or on the basis of the entry as June 24, 1931, because according to him, his date of birth was June 24, 1934, but he cannot ask for restraint order that he be not retired from service as alleged. Consequently, the ad interim injunction granted by the trial Court was vacated.

(3.) The learned counsel for the respondent-State submitted that no such injunction could be granted to the plaintiff as it will cause irreparable loss to the defendant whereas the plaintiff is entitled to claim monetary benefits in case he succeeds in the suit. Moreover, the balance of convenience is also in favour of the defendant and prima facie the entry in the service book should be taken to be the date of birth which was given by the plaintiff.