MUHAMMAD ASADULLAH KHAN NIAZI, SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER, BAHAWALPUR
The petitioner, an Overseer promoted to officiating Sub-Divisional Officer, challenged his reversion to the post of Overseer by filing a civil suit for declaration and injunction. The lower courts refused to grant a temporary injunction against the reversion. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner argued that he held a permanent position as a Sub-Divisional Officer and could not be reverted without a show-cause notice. The Supreme Court examined the dispute regarding the petitioner's status as a permanent Sub-Divisional Officer. The Court held that the lower courts were justified in refusing the temporary injunction because the petitioner failed to demonstrate that he would suffer irreparable loss, as any potential grievance could be addressed through monetary compensation. Consequently, the Court declined to interfere with the lower courts' orders and dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, affirming that temporary injunctions are not appropriate where the alleged injury is purely financial and compensable.
- Is a temporary injunction appropriate when the alleged injury is purely monetary and compensable?
- Can an officiating employee claim a right to a permanent position without establishing the permanency of that status?
ORDER
1. WAHEEDUDDIN AHMAD, J.-The petitioner was appointed Overseer with effect from 10th October 1959, by the Superintending Engineer, Quetta Provincial B & R, Quetta. On the 1st July 1963, he was confirmed in that position. On the 24th November 1966, he was promoted as officiating Sub- Divisional Officer by the Chief Engineer, Quetta. On the dissolution of the Province of West Pakistan, the petitioner was transferred from the. Quetta Region and posted as Sub-Divisional Officer, Bahawalpur, Eastern Region.
2. On the 1st June 1971, he was reverted to the post of Overseer. The petitioner filed a civil suit for declaration and injunction and all the Courts below have refused to grant him temporary injunction. The petitioner seeks permission to file act appeal against the order of the High Court in Civil Revision No. 17 of 1972.
3. Sh. Abdul Haque, learned counsel for the petition, leas contended that the petitioner has a prima facie, case arid the balance of convenience is also in his, favour. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner was a permanent Sub-Divisional Officer and he could not be reverted without show- cause notice. The question whether the petitioner was a permanent Sub-Divisional Officer is disputed by the Department. It is yet to be seen whether he is a pecM4ent Sub-Divisional Officer. In our opinion, the Court was perfectly justified in holding that the petitioner will not suffer irreparable loss and injury as he can be monetarily compensated. At this stage, we are not inclined to interfere with this matter. The petition is dismissed.