TYNDALE BISCOE SCHOOL Vs. NEELAM KOUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS motion of revision is aimed at revising the order of learned Addl. District Judge, Srinagar dated: 21 -10 -1999 in Civil Misc. Appeal filed against the order of learned Munsiff, Sub -Registrar, Srinagar dated: 11 -12 -1998 confirming the said order. It stems out of those circumstances which are summarized as:

(2.) THE respondent namely Neelam Koul came to institute a suit for declaration before the learned trial court to the effect that order of her termination dated: 04 -07 -1998 passed by the petitioner No. 2, appellant is null and void and the plaintiff - respondent is entitled to the salary from June, 1998 till disposal of the suit with a consequential relief of perpetual injunction that the defendant -petitioners be restrained to terminate her services. It is inter -alia maintained in the plaint that the petitioner -defendant No. 1 -Society stands recognized by the State Government as a Government Educational Institution; that the plaintiff -petitioner came to be appointed as a Dispensary Assistant in the same Institution on adhoc basis on 04 -03 -1988 and after a period of eight years working on adhoc basis she was confirmed on the said post in the month of April, 1996;thaton29 -05 -1998 the plaintiff came to be visited with a suspension order which reads as under:

(3.) THAT the perusal of the said suspension order reveals that the plaintiff is being suspended on the ground of her obnoxious and immoral behaviour; that the charge is very serious, highly illegal and defamatory; that without holding inquiry whatsoever the defendants -petitioner came to terminate the services of the plaintiff -petitioner on 04 -07 -1998, after paying her three months salary in lieu of the notice; that the said termination order is highly illegal, unconstitutional and malafide; that the cause of action has accrued to the plaintiff -respondent on 04 -07 -1998 when she was visited by the termination order and is subsisting one. Alongside, this suit, the plaintiff -petitioner came to file motion for issuance of temporary injunction. The trial court after recording his satisfaction that the issuance of notice to the respondent -defendants shall render the suit in fructuous came to record on 03 -08 -1998 order of ex -parte temporary injunction restraining the defendants -petitioners from giving effect to the order impugned dated: 09 -07 -1998 with a further direction to maintain status qua anti as on 28 -05 -1998. The ex -parte order of grant of injunction came to be assailed by the defendant -petitioners before the first appellant court and the first appellate court, the second Addl. District Judge, by virtue of its order dated: 29 -08 -1998 came to dismiss the appeal as premature, remanded the case back to the trial court with a direction to dispose of the petition on merits after considering the objections if any, and after hearing the parties.