1988 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Appeal No. 43 of 1988, decided on 7th July, 1988. ‑‑‑O. XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2‑‑North‑West Frontier Province Service Tribunals .pct (I of 1974), S. 4‑‑Temporary injunction‑‑Appellant, praying for temporary injunction against termination of his services, till decision of his appeal by Tribunal‑ Appellant not approaching Tribunal within prescribed time and entered into litigation with Government Department in Civil Courts and finally, without approaching departmental authority, lodged appeal to Tribunal on ground that he was not provided with copy of termination order‑‑Appellant under law was bound to obtain copy from respondents, who were public servants, personally or through his counsel or through Courts where he had filed suits against respondents‑ Appellant have got no good prima facie case and was likely to get arrears of pay and other benefits, in case his appeal succeeded, and as such no inconvenience was likely to be caused to him‑‑Temporary injunction refused to appellant in circumstances. Khalid Mahmood for Appellant. Petitioner has sought for the issuance of the temporary injunction against the respondents on the ground that he is still working as valve‑man on the Tube‑well maintained by the respondents, but in the garb of the so‑called termination order, it is apprehended that they will prevent him from performing his duties. He claimed the prima facie nature of the case in his favour, balance of in convenience and irreparable loss to him. Respondents controverted the application by submitting reply, inter alia on the grounds that the appeal is not maintainable, it is barred by time and the petitioner has got no good case. Arguments were advanced. The contention of the appellant that he has got a good prima facie case is not tenable. Per termination order attached with the written statement of respondent No. 7 it appears that he was dismissed from service by him on 1‑4‑1986. The Tribunal came into existence in the year, 1974. It was incumbent upon him to approach the Tribunal after exhausting the departmental remedy, but instead he entered into litigation with the respondents in the Civil Courts at Swabi and Mardan and finally without approaching the departmental authority he came and lodged the present appeal on the ground that he was nowhere provided with the copy of the termination order. This plea, on the face of it appears to be concocted. He was, under the law bound to obtain the copy from the respondents who are public servants, personally or through his counsel or the Courts where he had filed the suits against the respondents. Moreover, he is a Government Servant and if he could prove his case at the time of arguments and a decree is passed in his favour, he will be entitled to the arrears of pay and other benefits, if any. No inconvenience will be caused to hi in, rather the respondents will be put to unnecessary harm, if after a period of more than two years, the appellant is thrusted upon them. On the grounds mentioned above, the application for issuance of temporary injunction is rejected and the file to come up for further proceedings on 27‑7‑1988. M.Y.H./89/Sr. N Injunction refused,