- (1.) This is a plaintiff's appeal against the judgment and decree dated 11-12-1968 passed by Civil and Sessions Judge, Rampur in Civil Appeal No. 61 of 1968. In the suit giving rise to this appeal Kunwar Bahadur, appellant Claimed following reliefs: (a) declaring the appellant to be a senior cashier, mandatory injunction ordering the respondent to restore him as a senior cashier, Rampur. (b) a decree for Rs. 320.00 as special pay at Rs. 40.00 p. m. from 4-5-1966 to 3-1-1967. (c) pendente lite and future special pay at Rs. 40.00 p. m. till the restoration of the appellant to the post of the senior cashier at Rampur Hydel division, Rampur (d) cost of the suit. (e) any other relief which in the circumstances of the case the court deems fit to award to him. The suit was filed on 4-1-1967. The facts upon which the above reliefs were claimed are these. By order dated 15-1-1957 (Ex. 10), the appellant was appointed as an officiating junior cashier in the Hydel department of the Government of the Uttar Pradesh at Rampur. The appellant joined his duties on 1-2-1957. He continued to perform his duties to the entire satisfaction of the authorities concerned. On the transfer of Sri Shyam Mohan Lal, Senior Cashier, by order dated 23-5-1957, he was promoted as officiating senior cashier. Sri Shyam Mohan Lal returned back to his post on 5-12-1957 and as such the appellant was transferred back to the initial post of Junior Cashier. In the year 1960, U. P. State Electricity Board came into existence and the services of the appellant were obtained by it. On 5-12-1960 Sri Shyam Mohan Lal was again promoted to the post of Head Clerk, but the appellant was not posted in his place as an officiating senior cashier. The appellant made representation, in consequence of which by order dated 1-5-1962, he was promoted to the post of senior cashier. Since then the appellant was working as senior cashier at Rampur. By order dated 7-4-1966, he was transferred to the post of Noter and Drafter at Moradabad. The appellant received this order of transfer on 4-5-1966. During the pendency of the suit the appellant was transferred from Moradabad to Etah. The orders of transfer were illegal and without jurisdiction. The post of Noter and Drafter is in a different cadre and is inferior in position. The orders of transfer are in utter disregard of the Government standing orders and the provisions of the Constitution as they were passed on personal prejudices without assigning any reason or affording any opportunity to the appellant and without any fault on his part. On receiving the order of transfer on 4-5-1966, the appellant had no alternative but to join the duty which he did under protest. The appellant was, therefore suffering a loss of special pay amounting to Rs. 40.00 p. m. as a senior cashier. The appellant approached the authorities but to no result. The appellant, therefore gave notice under Section 80 C.P.C. The respondents contested the suit. Leaving aside the pleas of want of jurisdiction of Rampur court to try the suit, under-valuation and in sufficiency of court fee, the respondents contended that the appellant was appointed on a temporary basis as a junior cashier, that he was appointed as officiating senior cashier as a stop gap arrangement, that the appellant worked as bill-clerk, record-clerk in the routine grade clerk cadre till April 1961, that the appellant made no representation when Sri Shyam Mohan Lal was promoted as Head Clerk in Dec. 1960, that the appellant was, however, allowed to work as officiating senior cashier because other officials did not want to work in that cadre, that the grade of the senior cashier was the same as that of Noter and Drafter, that the appellant was only a temporary employee and had no vested right to claim the job for himself, that the appellant in pursuance of the transfer order did not join at Moradabad, that instead he filed . a suit in the court at Rampur for injunction against the order of transfer, that the appellant withdrew the suit, that it was wrong to say that he joined at Moradabad under protest, that the appellant was not at all entitled to any special pay because the special pay was granted much after the transfer of the appellant from Rampur and that the appellant was not working on the post on the date of the order granting special pay and that no rights of the appellant were violated and that the suit was wholly misconceived.
(2.) The Munsif Rampur, who tried the suit framed 5 issues. The first issue was whether the transfer of the appellant to Moradabad as Noter and Drafter was illegal. The trial court decided this issue in favour of the appellant. In doing so the trial court considered F. Rule 15 of the Financial Hand Book, Vol. II, Parts II to IV. The trial court 'further found that in view of notification No. 33/1 (i)/66 FDAI, dated Apr. 19, 1966 (Ex. 5) the appellant was entitled to special pay @ Rs. 15/- p. m. Consequently the trial court decreed the appellant's suit and directed the respondents to restore him to the post of senior cashier. A decree for special pay at Rs. 15/- p. m. from 4-5-1966 to 3-1-1967 was also passed. The appellant was also held entitled to pendente lite and future special pay at Rs. 15/- p. m.
(3.) The respondents filed appeal and in appeal the Civil and Sessions Judge set aside the decree passed by the trial court and dismissed the appellant's suit in toto. The lower appellate court held that the appellant had no lien on any post as he was a purely temporary employee and that the appellant was not entitled to get mandatory injunction claimed by him. At this stage it may be mentioned that the trial court held that the appellant had a lien.;