1981 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

NASIM HASAN SHAH, J. This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court dated 29‑10‑1978, whereby, in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction, the order of the Additional District Judge granting temporary injunction was recalled and the application for temporary injunction dismissed. The relevant facts are that the petitioner was promoted as Deputy Controller of the Branches in the Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan on probation on 22‑7‑1974. On 7‑6‑1975, he was demoted and posted as Assistant Regional Manager, Peshawar. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed a suit for temporary injunction on 10‑6‑1975 and also prayed for a temporary injunction in the pendente lite. The learned Civil Judge originally granted him ad interim injunction but this was ultimately vacated by him on 14‑1‑1976. The petitioner thereupon preferred an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, which was accepted by him vide his order dated 11‑5‑1978. The appellate order, however, was assailed in a revision petition filed before the Lahore High Court on 14‑5‑1978 which was ultimately allowed and the application for the issuance of tempory injunc tion dismissed vide order dated 29‑10‑1978, Hence this petition for leave to appeal. The learned Judge while accepting the appeal filed by the respondent held that the injunction could not have been issued in view of the law laid down by this Court in Shahzada Muhammad Umar Beg v. Sultan Mahmood Khan and another (P L D 1970 S C 139) and Province of West Pakistan v. Mulik Asghar Khan (1971 S C M R 569) In both these cases it was pointed out that issuance of temporary injunction to the Department concerned in respect of service matters is bound to disturb their working and such injunctions should not ordinarily be issued unless there are compelling reasons to do so because the balance of convenience ordinarily would not lie in disturbing the administrative arrangements. It was further observed that there can be no question of any irreparable injury being caused to the employee by refusing the temporary injunction to him as he can claim monetary compensation in case he succeeds in his suit and the orders of the Government reverting the plaintiff to his original post are finally held as illegal and without jurisdiction by the competent Court. Before the learned Judge reliance had been placed on this Court's decision in Government of Sind and another v. Ghulam Muhammad (1973 S C M R 96) but the High Court held that 'the said decision was not helpful to the case of the petitioner. Mr. Mahmood Ali Kasuri in support of this petition has contended that the High Court had no jurisdiction to interfere in the order of the learned Additional District Judge in exercise of revisional jurisdiction in view of the provision of section 115 of the C. P. C. Hs has submitted that there was no error of jurisdiction and the learned Judge in the High Court had tress passed beyond his legitimate jurisdiction in interfering with the order of the learned Additional District Judge. We are not impressed by this submission. As the learned Judge in the High Court has pointed out that the established law on the subject is that a temporary injunction cannot be granted in the circumstances in which it was prayed for by the petitioner herein. We may add in this connection that besides the two judgments of this Court noticed by the learned Single judge in his order there are several other judgments of this Court to the same effect, namely, Province of West Pakistan v. Bashir Ahmad Qureshi (P L D 1959 S C (Pak.) 93), Pakistan and another v. Qazi Syed Hikmat Hussain (P L D 1959 S C (Pak.) 107) and The State of Pakistan and another v. Mehrajuddin (P L D 1959 S C (Pak.) 147) wherein, Hikmat Hussain's case was reaffirmed. As for the decision of this Court in Government of Sind and another v. Ghulam Muhammad we note that this was a cafe where leave was refused against the judgment passed by the High Court and while dismissing the petition for leave to appeal, this Court observed :‑ "In the present case we are satisfied that the injunction has been granted on a sound ground. The documents on the record, prima facie, show that the appointment of the respondent was not on temporary basis as Assistant Engineer." In the present case, the learned Judge in the High Court has pointed out as regards the factual side, that this was a simple case of promotion by the Chairman of the Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan on the condition of keeping the petitioner on special report for six months to assess his suitability. From the documents shown to the learned Judge by the counsel of the respondent bank it appeared that there were reports of disobedience of orders of his officers by the petitioner and it was, therefore, observed that in these circumstances, the Court could not insist that the petitioner retained by the Bank in the capacity in which he was promoted. The High Court having found that the learned Additional District Judge had acted illegally and irregularly in the exercise of his jurisdiction by refusing to act upon the law laid down by this Court in cases of this kind and having given, good reasons for interfering with his order, there is no ground for interferences. This petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed hereby. Appeal dismissed.