J. V. Gupta, J. - (1.) The plaintiff petitioner has filed this revision petition against the judgment and decree of the Senior Subordinate Judge (Exercising Enhanced Appellate Powers) Sangrur, dated 18th May, 1974, whereby the decree of the trial Court dismissing the plaintiff's suit his been maintained.
(2.) The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 935-23 paise against the Punjab Wakf Board, Ambala, as arrears of pay for the period 11th Feb., 1567 to 11th July, 1967, on she allegations that since 17th Jan., 1967, he had been working as Headmaster of the lslamia High School, Malerkotla and when the management or the school was taken over by the Punjab Wakf Board-defendant, the pay of the plaintiff was fixed at Rs per month on 22nd June, 1965 in the grade of Rs 150 - 400 It was further pleaded that in pursuance of agreement of service executed between the parties his salary was fixed at Rs 395 with effect from 1st Sept., 1966. It was also averred that the plaintiff through an order dated 9th Feb., 1967 passed by the Secretary of the Board and served upon him on 11th Feb., 1967, was placed under suspension end subsistence allowance equivalent to his nail average pay and dearness allowance was granted Subsequently on his representation against the order of suspension, his services were terminated with effect from 11th July, 1967.
(3.) The suit was contested by she Board on various grounds. The main point to be determined in this petition are, whether the subject- matter of the suit was not justiciable and that the Civil Court at Malerkotla had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, however, on the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the order of suspension dated 9th Feb., 1967 is legal and not contrary to rules and regulations ? 2. If issue No. 1 as proved, to what amount and for what period, the plaintiff is entitled ? 3. Whether the suit is within limitation ? 4. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of the parties. 5. Whether the Court has jurisdiction to try the suit ? 6. Whether the suit is barred by the provisions of Order 2, Rule 2 of the C P. C ? 7. Whether the suit can proceed without making the Chairman and the then Secretary of the Board Shri Mob Maheeb Ullah at- party to the suit ? 8. Whether the subject-matter of the suit is not justiciable in the Court of law ? Since it was held on issue No. 5 that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit, the plaintiff's suit was dismissed. However, on issue No. 1, the trial Court came to the conclusion that in the present case, there are no rules and regulations or terms of contract which could justify that the defendant could suspend the plaintiff. In appeal before the Senior Subordinate Judge, there was no dispute between the parties regarding the jurisdiction of Civil (Court to entertain the suit. The main contest was as to the order of suspension passed by the Board against the plaintiff. It has been observed by the lower appellate Court that "the learned trial Court has taken erroneous view holding that since there was no term of the contract authorising the Board to suspend the appellant no the suspension was illegal. I have discussed above that even the service of the appellant could be terminated straightaway so there was no bar against passing suspension order ,when no rule or regulation governing condition of services have been proved. The appellant has conceded at the time of arguments that though some rules and regulations were framed by the respondent Board but they have not been enforced as yet. Thus the appellant is not successful in challenging legality of the suspension order, No amount can be awarded to him merely on this ground that he was placed under suspension illegally. Feeling aggrieved against this, the plaintiff has filed the present revision petition in this Court.;