1988 PLC(CS) 731

Citation1988 PLC(CS) 731

CourtKhyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal

Case No.Appeal No. 42 of 1988

Date1988-07-07

Judge(s)Malik Muhammad Pervez Khan, Chairman

ORDER

1. Petitioner has sought for the issuance of the temporary injunction against the respondents on the ground that he is still working as Chowkidar 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.

2. 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.

3. 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 then 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 him, 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.

4. M.Y.H/88/Sr. N Injunction refused.