HARYANA STATE Vs. RAJ KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision petition the State of Haryana has challenged order dated April 16, 1992, made by the Additional District Judge, Rewari, setting aside in appeal order of the trial court dated January 13, 1992, directing that the plaintiff be taken back in service forthwith and further restraining the defendants from terminating the plaintiffs service till the decision of the suit.

(2.) The plaintiff had filed the suit for permanent injunction for restraining the State Government from terminating his service except in accordance with law. In the plaint, he claimed that he was employed by the State Government as a master on payment of Rs. 500/- p.m. as salary and apprehended termination of services without notice or recourse to known procedure of law. On his application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, Civil Procedure Code, ad interim stay was granted by the trial Court on September 31, 1981. Later, the trial Court found that the plaintiff was being paid tuition fees of Rs. 500/- p.m., it held prima facie that he was not an employee of the State Government, and dismissed his application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, Civil Procedure Code. Aggrieved by this order, he preferred an appeal which has been allowed by the Additional District Judge, Rewari, by the impugned order dated April 16, 1992.

(3.) The learned Additional District Judge reversed the findings of the trial Court and allowed the plaintiffs appeal. He has found prima facie that the plaintiff was receiving salary of Rs. 500/- p.m. and that he had already completed 240 days in service. Moreover, the stand taken by the State Government in the written statement that the plaintiffs service were terminated on the abolition of the Handloom Centre on account of lack of funds was found to be without substance, as the Handloom Centre where he was employed was still functioning. Therefore, the order of the trial Court was set aside. Since the services of the plaintiff had been terminated by the State Government after ad-interim stay was granted by the trial Court on September 21, 1991, the appellate Court directed reinstatement of the plaintiff in service, and restrained the defendants from terminating his services till the decision of the suit.