N. C. KOCHHAR, J. - (1.) THE facts giving rise to this revision filed by the plaintiff are as under:-
(2.) A suit had been filed by the plaintiff stating that she had been appointed as class IV employee of the State of Rajasthan (defendant No. l) vide order dated 10. 6. 1985 passed by the Addl. Collector Development, Alwar (defendant no. 2) for the period ending 31. 7. 1985, but her term of employment was extended from time to time and she continued working on her post till 18. 9. 1988, but when she reached her office on 19. 9. 1988, she was not allowed to work in the office and was orally informed that her services stood terminated with effect from 19. 9. 1988. It was stated that the action of the defendants in not allowing her to continue working in her job, was illegal and it was prayed that the defendants be directed by way of a permanent injunction to allow her to continue in her job and to continue paying her salary. Along with the plaint, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (the Code) was also filed by the plaintiff praying that during the pendency of the suit a temporary injunction be issued directing the defendants to allow her to join the duty. The suit is being contested by the defendants who have also opposed the prayer made in the application for grant of temporary injunction. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Munsif, Alwar held that no case had been made out for grant of temporary injunction and consequently, vide order dated 4. 10. 1988 dismissed her application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code. The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Alwar vide the impugned order dated 30. 3. 1989 passed in Civil Appeal No. 135 of 1988. Feeling aggrieved , the plaintiff has approached this Court by filing this revision petition. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the impugned orders. Shri P. C. Jain, the learned counsel for the plaintiff has contended that the plaintiff is a poor person and that the action of the respondents in not allowing her to continue to work in her job is illegal and as such the learned trial court erred in not issuing temporary injunction and the learned first appellate court was wrong in dismissing the appeal filed by her. He has placed reliance on the decisions reported in 1987 S. L. J. 201 AIR 1970 SC 1244 AIR 1976 SC 880, and AIR 1977 SC 751. The learned trial court gave good reasons while dismissing the application moved by the plaintiff. The learned appellate court also dismissed the appeal by recording good reasons and I do not think any case has been made out for interference in exercise of the powers vested in this court under section 115 of the Code. The rulings relied upon by Shri Jain are of no assistance to the plaintiff as they deal with their own facts. There is another aspect of the matter, It is the admitted case of the parties that the services of the plaintiff stood terminated before she filed the suit. If the relief asked for the plaintiff in the suit or in the application is granted by the Civil court, it would amount to ordering her reinstatement in the service. If the services of an Employee are wrongfully terminated, he has a remedy of claiming damages for breach of contract of service, but such a contract of service cannot be specifically enforced and no order of reinstatement can be passed by a civil court. If any authority is needed for this purpose, reference is made to the decision of Supreme Court in case Jitendra Nath Biswas Vs. M/s. Empire of India and Ceylon Tea Co. (1 ). In this view of the matter the civil court has no jurisdiction to try the suit and to grant relief of reinstatement by issuing a mandatory injunction and as such no temporary injunction could also be issued by the learned trial court. This revision petition has also to be dismissed on the ground itself.
(3.) CONSEQUENTLY, this revision petition fails and is dismissed, but with no order as to costs. .;