High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
U.P.S.R.T.C. v. Munsif West, Allahabad - WRIT - C No. 5180 of 1982  RD-AH 849 (12 January 2006)
CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO.5180 OF 1982
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation ......Petitioner
Munsif West, Allahabad and another .. Respondents
Hon'ble Bharati Sapru, J.
List is revised. Learned counsel for the petitioner is present. Learned counsel for the respondent is not present. Since it is a very old matter, I am proceeding to hear this matter in the absence of the respondents' counsel.
The petitioner is the U.P. Road Transport Corporation, which has filed the present writ petition against an order of injunction-dated 25.7.81 passed in original suit No.591 of 1981.
The facts of the case are that the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation was constituted with effect from 1.6.72 under Section 3 of the U.P. Road Transport Corporation Act. The relevant rules applicable to the said Corporation are the rules and regulations applicable to the employees of the Roadways Association as had been applicable earlier. The age of retirement of Government servants according to the said rules and regulations was 58 years.
The respondent No.2 Sultan Arif was working as an accounts clerk in the Roadways Corporation. The date of birth as recorded by the said respondent in the records of the Corporation was 23.7.23. Accordingly, he was to retire as per the Corporation on 22.7.81.
The respondent was to attain the age of 58 years on 22.7.81. The Corporation on 24.4.81 sent intimation of the same to him. He was due to retire at the end of the month of his date of birth, i.e., on 31.7.81.
The Corporation has stated that during his service itself, the respondent workman tried to make manipulation on his service book by which he tried to change the date birth as 23.7.28 i.e, to say, he sought to extend his service by a period of five years. Having received notice of retirement in the month of April, 1981, the respondent workman filed suit No. 591 of 1981 in which, he obtained an exparte injunction on 25.7.81. By acting in collusion with the postal authorities, the respondent workman had obtained a false report of service by refusal.
As a consequence, the respondents' application for injunction (Document 6-C) was allowed by the Court even though the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of Section 6(1) of the U.P. Public Services Tribunal Act, 1976 which reads as hereunder. :-
"No suit shall lie against the State Government or any local authority or any statutory corporation or company for any relief in respect of any matter relating to employment at the instance of any person who is or has been a public servant, including a person specified in (clauses (a) to (g) of sub-section (4) of Section I."
The Corporation, therefore, moved an application on 3.8.81 stating that notices were refused by the Corporation and a false report has been filed in collusion with the postal authorities by the plaintiff respondent. Consequently, after calling for objections, the Court below proceeded to hear the matter on merits and the injunction granted earlier on 25.7.81 was set aside on 11.8.81.
The Plaintiff respondent, thereafter, moved a second application under Section 22 C seeking revival of the earlier order of injunction. Orders were passed on 24.4.82 and the order of injunction-dated 25.7.81 was once more restored. By virtue of this injunction order, the plaintiff respondent deemed to have continued in service even though he had retired on 22.7.81. It is against the order dated 24.4.82 that the petitioner Corporation has filed the present petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner Corporation Shri Kant Sharma has argued that firstly the suit itself was barred and not maintainable under the provisions of Section 6 (1) of the U.P. Public Services (Tribunal)Act, 1976 which has been quoted above.
The second argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in view of the provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 2 the injunction could not have been granted to the respondent workman. Order XXXIX Rule 2 is quoted
herein below. :-
"2. Injunction to restrain repetition or continuance of breach -(1) In any suit for restraining the defendant from committing a breach of contract or other injury of any kind, whether compensation is claimed in the suit or not, the plaintiff may, at any time, after the commencement of the suit, and either before or after judgment, apply to the Court for a temporary injunction to restrain the defendant from committing the breach of contract or injury complained of, or any breach of contract or injury of a like kind arising out of the same contract or relating to the same property or right.
(2) The Court may by order grant such injunction, on such terms as to the duration of the injunction, keeping an account, giving security, or otherwise, as the Court thinks fit."
Learned counsel for the petitioner has also argued that in any case, once interim injunction dated 25.7.81 was vacated on 11.8.81, the plaintiff respondent stood retired automatically and the Court then have no jurisdiction to revive the order of injunction because the plaintiff respondents, having retired had no right to continue on the post.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has also argued that during his entire service, the respondent workman had not cared to get his date of birth rectified and it is only after receiving notice for retirement that he moved an application for injunction. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that it is well settled law that persons cannot be permitted to change their date of birth at the end of their service.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has also argued that the injunction granted on 24.4.1982 was also bad because once the plaintiff respondent has retired, in case of success of his suit, at the most he would have been entitled to receive salary, but it would not give him the right to continue in service after the age of superannuation.
Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the record of the case, I am of the view that the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner have no force and are liable to be accepted by this Court in toto.
Section 6(1) of the U.P. Public Services (Tribunal) Act, 1976 which is applicable to the workman in the Corporation clearly bars suits. Therefore, filing a suit for injunction by the respondent workman was clearly not maintainable.
The second argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no injunction in the nature of what was sought by the respondent workman could have been granted in view of the provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 2 is also correct.
The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that once the injunction order was vacated on 11.8.81 it could not have been revived is also correct.
I, therefore, reach the conclusion that the injunction order granted on 24.4.1982 by the Court below is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. The respondent workman was not entitled to get any relief by way of an injunction. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner are wholly correct.
In view of the above, I hereby quash the order-dated 24.4.1982 passed by the Court below.
The writ petition is allowed. There will be no order as to costs.
Dated : 12.1.06
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.