KRISHAN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON a perusal of the record I find that the trial court after duly considering the pros and cons of the case rightly granted the temporary injunction restraining the respondents from reverting the petitioner. It took into consideration that the petitioner (Plaintiff) has been working right from the beginning of his career as a Laboratory Attendant and drawing the same pay scale as was being drawn by Class TV employees because then the two scales were equal. He continued to serve for about eight years as laboratory Attendant's. Now the pay scales of the Laboratory Attendant have been revised. He is sought to be reverted. It is this action which has been challenged by the petitioner in the trial court by way of a suit. In appeal, the lower appellate Court set aside the order of the trial Court and dismissed the injunction application filed by the petitioner. This order has been challenged in this revision petition.

(2.) A perusal of the appellate court's order shows that it has not assigned any cogent reason to set aside the discretion exercised by the trial court. The lower appellate court has not demonstrated as to how on admitted facts principles of law have been wrongly applied. I am therefore, of the opinion that the lower appellate court was not justified in setting aside order and interfering in the discretion exercised by the trial Court. However, the mere fact that the appellate Court might have taken a different view is not a sufficient ground for interference. It was held by a Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in Durga Das v. Nalin Chandra Nandan, A. I. R. 1934 Calcutta 694, that if the Judge rightly appreciates the facts and applies to those facts the true principles, that is a sound exercise of judicial discretion. I find that the trial court had rightly exercised the discretion and the same did not call for any interference. The revision petition is, therefore, allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the order passed by the trial court granting temporary injunction is restored. However, in the fitness of things, it is directed that the trial court shall proceed expeditiously with the suit. The parties are also expected to co-operative with the trial Judge for the disposal of the suit. Under the peculiar circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.