KESHOTE, J. - (1.) OFFICE objections are dispensed with.
(2.) HAVING heard learned counsel for the plaintiff petitioner and perusing the revision petition and the order dated 03. 10. 2001 of the Additional District Judge, Gangapur City in Civil Misc. Case No. 01/96, I am satisfied that it has not committed any illegality to hold that the petitioner has failed to establish that the non petitioners have wilfully and deliberately dis obeyed the order of the Court. The contempt matter is between the Court and the Contemners and the petitioners role is only of an informant. Where the Court is satisfied that the respondent has not committed any contempt of its order on interference of this court in this finding of the fact is called for under Section 115 of the CPC. It is a transfer matter and the petitioner should have not acted in this manner. He is a Government servant and should have been exhibited himself as a law abiding employee. After his relieving from the post, he should have reported at the transfer place and should have joined there rather to avoid his joining by adopting this course. In the transfer matter of Government servant otherwise also, there is no question of grant of any temporary injunction by the Civil Court. Where in the transfer matter of an employee temporary injunction is not granted, will not result in causing any irreparable injury to the concerned employee. Still the courts subordinate are granting temporary injunction in these matters. For grant of temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC, the litigant praying for same is to satisfy to the Court that he has prima facie case, in case the temporary injunction is not granted, it may result in causing irreparable injury to him which can not be compensated in terms of money and lastly that the balance of convenience also favours grant of the temporary injunction. In the case of Union of India vs. S. L. Abbas (1), it is held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that a transfer order of a Government Servant is subject to judicial review of the Court only on the grounds, firstly, if it is a malafide and secondly, it is made in violation of any statutory provisions. Though, it is difficult to accept at this stage that it is a malafide transfer or an order made in violation of any statutory provision at the most, it can be taken that he may have prima facie case in his favour. Only on establishing that a prima facie case is there in his favour still temporary injunction can be granted by the Court until further he establishes to the satisfaction of the Court existence of the order ingredients in his favour. It is no more res integra that Court gets jurisdiction to grant a temporary injunction in a given case only when all there ingredients i. e. prima facie case, irreparable injury is likely to case on declining of the same and balance of convenience favours grant thereof are established to its satisfaction. In the case of a transfer of a Government servant irreparable injury will not be caused to him in case where temporary injunction is not granted in his favour by the Court subordinate. It is not a case where he is to suffer any loss of salary or status etc. The services of the government servant are transferable and they can be transferred from one place to another place. On transfer, he will get TA and DA. It may be a case of change of place which is hardly a matter and sufficient to accept that it will result in causing irreparable injury to the concerned employee which cannot be compensated in terms of the money. In case ultimately the employee succeeds in the suit, the order of his transfer may be quashed and set aside and he can be ordered to be restored back to his original place.
(3.) THUS on the transfer of the government employee from one place to another place, it cannot be said, accepted and taken that it will result in causing any irreparable injury to him which cannot be compensated in terms of money. So far as to the balance of convenience is concerned in the matter of transfer of an employee form one place to another place, it does not favour the grant of temporary injunction. Despite of this clear legal position still in case in future in the matter of transfer of government servant/employee a temporary injunction is granted by the Court subordinate, it may be seriously viewed. The amendment has already been made in the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal Act, 1976 and the suit in such matter is barred. A transfer of a government servant is a service matter as define in Clause (f) of Section (2) of the Act aforestated. It is being a service matter against that order appeal lies before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal at Jaipur. This is another ground on which the courts subordinate may not have jurisdiction in matter and thus otherwise also no jurisdiction to grant temporary injunction. The courts subordinate seldom bother for these provisions of the Act aforestated and legal position and proceed to grant the temporary injunction in the matter of the transfer of the Government servant/employees. ;