KESHOTE, J. - (1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE fact of the case, in brief, are that the plaintiff respondent filed an application under Order 39 R. 2a of the C. P. C. against the Officers of the Municipal Corporation, Jaipur. In these contempt proceedings the plaintiff respondents filed an application under Section 151 of the C. P. C. and prayed therein to direct to those Officers to pay to him the salary. Under the impugned order the learned trial court directed these Offices to pay the amount of salary mentioned therein to the plaintiff respondent. It is further ordered that so long as he continues in service of the Corporation he shall be paid regularly monthly salary. The plaintiff respondent filed the suit in the trial Court for permanent injunction against the defendant petitioners alleging therein that he was appointed on the post of Time Keeper on 3. 2. 1999 for six months on contractual basis. It is alleged that the Corporation is removing him from the service even before expiry of six months contractual period, the period for which he was given the appointment on contractual basis. In this factual backdrop, the prayer has been made for permanent injunction in the terms that the defendant petitioners be restrained from removing him from the service before the period for which he was given contractual appointment. Along with the suit the plaintiff respondent filed an application under Order 39 R. 1 & 2 of the C. P. C. On 16. 7. 1999 the learned trial court passed interim order to the effect that the plaintiff respondent shall not be removed from the post till the next date. On 4th of December, 1999, it is not in dispute, the learned trial court dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff respondent for temporary injunction. The learned trial court directed the Corporation to make the payment of the salary to the plaintiff respondent for the period from 3rd of February, 1999 to 4th of December, 1999. It is not in dispute that the order of the learned trial court has been complied with by the Corporation by paying the aforesaid amount to the plaintiff respondent vide Cheque No. 007229 dated 24. 5. 2000. In the application filed under Order 39 R. 2a of the C. P. C. the prayer has been made for punishing the defendant petitioners for committing contempt of the order of the court dated 4. 12. 1999. The further prayer has been made that the defendant petitioners may be directed to pay to him to salary for the period from 3rd of February, 1999 to till date. Reply to this application has been filed by the petitioner and in para No. 2 thereof it is mentioned that the amount of Rs. 5660/- has been paid on 24th of May, 2000. Thus amount has been paid after filing of this application i. e. beyond the period granted by the learned trial court for payment thereof under its order dt. 4. 12. 1999.
(3.) IN the application under Section 151 of the C. P. C. filed on 31. 8. 2000 a prayer has been made for payment of the salary. IN this application it is admitted by the plaintiff respondent that the Cheque of Rs. 5660/- has been give. IN reply to this application it is stated that it was only a contractual service for a period of six months. After 28th of July, 1999 he did not work nor any work was taken from him. The learned trial court has not decided the application filed by the plaintiff respondent under Order 39 R 2a of the C. P. C. but under the impugned order this application filed under Section 151 of the C. P. C. in those proceedings has been decided and the order has been passed for payment of the salary to the plaintiff respondent for the period exceeding the period of contractual period of service. The learned counsel for the plaintiff respondent raised a preliminary objection that this reviser petition is not maintainable. Truly speaking what it is contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff respondent prima facie, appears to be correct but the learned counsel for the plaintiff respondent appears to be oblivious of the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The learned trial counsel I am constraint to observe, has passed this order totally contrary to what he has ordered earlier on 4. 12. 1999. In the application for grant of temporary injunction the learned trial court though, initially granted the ad-interim temporary injunction but finally under order dated 4. 12. 1999 the application filed under Order 39 R. 1 & 2 of the C. P. C. has been dismissed. He filed the suit with the grievance that the Corporation is dispensing with his services before completion of the contractual period. The learned trial court did not find any prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff respondent. The learned trial court accepted that the plaintiff respondent was appointed purely on temporary basis for a period of six months. The suit has been filed against the Corporation for permanent injunction restraining it from dispensing with the services of the plaintiff respondent before completion of the contractual period. ;