THE UNION OF INDIA (UOI) AND ORS. Vs. SRI KARUNA KANTA DEKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE opposite party approached the Court of learned Sadar Munsiff at Gauhati for declaration that the deduction of pay for 7.1.82, 12.1.82 and 18.1.82 in respect of the Plaintiff and 21 other is arbitrary, illegal and void. He has also prayed for permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from giving effect of the aforesaid decision. The suit was filed on 5.2.82 and it was accompanied inter alia by an application under Order 39, with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. On 6.2.82 the learned Munsiff No. III, to whose file the case was transferred restrained the Defendants from giving effect to their decision gala ting to the pay cut. It may be stated that the Plaintiff had also been allowed to file the suit in a representative capacity and leave of the Court was also grante1 to institute the suit as contemplated by Section 80(2) of the Code, feeling aggrieved at the interim order of injunction, the Defendants referred an appeal before the learned Assistant District Judge No. 1, Gauhati which has been dismissed.

(2.) THE learned Central Government Standing Counsel lists advanced three submissions before me: (1) the order of ad -in -term injunction was without jurisdiction inasmuch as the second part of Section 80(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure contains an embargo on giving even an interim relies except after giving to the Government or public career (sic), as the case may be a reasonable opportunity of showing cause in respect of the relied prayed for in he suit; (ii) It was a (sic) case where it could reasonably be halo that any irreparable would have been caused to the Plaintiff and 21 ether member of the Audit Suit Association and (iii) that the pay cut order was in consonance with the proviso to F.R. 17 which states that an officer "who is absent from duty without any authority" shad not be entitled to any pay and allowance during the period of such absence.

(3.) AS to the absence of irreparable loss, Shri Medhi concords 'that as the period of unauthorised absence may even entail an break in service under FR 17(a),it is a case where irrupted loss would have been caused to the incumbents if an order of injunction had not been issued. Learned Standing Counsel submits from the bar that in the present case no break in service has been ordered, nor is contemplated. Be that as it may, it is a matter which lies within the jurisdiction of the (sic) Court to decide.