RSA No. 1230 of 1988 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No. 1230 of 1988 Date of Decision: 21.01.2011. The State of Punjab and others .......Appellants Vs. Rameshwar Dyal ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Satish Bhanot, Addl. AG, Punjab for the appellants. ..... SABINA, J. The plaintiff Rameshwar Dyal filed a suit for mandatory injunction claiming the emoluments permissible to him under the rules from 6th October 1982 to 27th January 1984. The case of the plaintiff in brief was that he was appointed as Workshop Attendant (Carpenter) on 4th November 1981. The services of the plaintiff was terminated vide order dated 6th October 1982. The plaintiff preferred an appeal against the termination order and the same was allowed vide order dated 6th January 1984 and the termination order passed against the plaintiff was set aside. However, the plaintiff was not paid the salary from 6th January 1982 to 27th January 1984. Hence, the suit was filed by the plaintiff. The defendants No. 1 to 3, in their written statement, admitted the factum of appointment of the plaintiff but it was RSA No. 1230 of 1988 averred that the plaintiff was appointed on 11.4.1981 instead of 4.11.1981. The passing of the termination order as well as the order passed in the appeal was admitted. It was averred that since the plaintiff had remained out of service for the period in question, he was not entitled to receive the salary for the said period. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the arrears of salary from 6.10.82 to 27.1.84, alongwith other allowances? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the mandatory injunction as prayed for? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff is debarred by his act and conduct from filing the present suit? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff had no locus-standi and cause of action to file the present suit? OPD 5. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 6. Whether the suit is bad for want of valid notice under Section 80 CPC? OPD 7. Relief.” The learned trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 7th March 1987. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the defendants preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Bhatinda vide judgment and decree dated 7.1.1988. Hence, the present appeal by the defendants. RSA No. 1230 of 1988 After hearing the learned State counsel, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. The plaintiff was appointed as Workshop Attendant (Carpenter) in April 1981. However, the services of the plaintiff were terminated vide order dated 6th October 1982 but the said order was set aside in appeal vide order dated 6th January 1984 (Ex. P-1). A perusal of the order dated 6.1.1984 reveals that the termination order dated 6th October 1982 had been set aside. In these circumstances, the plaintiff was entitled to all consequential reliefs including the pay for the period he had remained out of service, as the said relief was not specifically denied vide order dated 6.1.1984. Both the Courts below had, thus, rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff. No substantial question of law arises in this case. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE January 21, 2011 gurpreet