IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision 1896 of 2006. Date of Decision: 11th January, 2008... The State of Haryana & Ors. ....Petitioners through Mr. R.S.Kundu, Addl.AG, Haryana. Versus K.C.Mittal ...Respondent through Mr. Vishal Garg, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT,J.(ORAL) The State of Haryana and others have filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning the orders dated 9.10.2001 and 6.10.2005 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hisar and learned Additional District Judge, Hisar respectively whereby an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 C.P.C. filed by the respondent in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction, has been allowed and the said order has been further confirmed by the Appellate Court. The respondent is employed as Sub Divisional Engineer in PWD (B&R) Branch at Hisar. He has filed the present suit for declaration and injunction to the effect that the office order No. 95 dated 28.9.2001 whereby the respondent-plaintiff's pay has been re- Civil Revision No.1896 of 2006. -2- fixed by withdrawing the benefit of three increments, is illegal and is liable to be set aside. Along with the said suit, the respondent-plaintiff also moved an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 C.P.C. for the grant of ad-interim injunction to restrain the petitioners from reducing the respondent's pay or deducting any amount from his salary on the basis of the impugned order. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance, gone through the orders impugned in the present petition. Normally, in such like service matters, where no irreparable loss would be caused to an employee as he can be suitably compensated in monetary terms, if his suit is decreed, the Civil Court ought not to have granted ad-interim injunction. However, the fact remains that it was on 9.10.2001 that learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hisar restrained the petitioners “ from deducting anything from” the respondent's salary on account of the impugned order till the final disposal of the suit on merits. The said order was further up-held by learned Additional District Judge, Hisar. It appears that during the pendency of this revision petition, the proceedings in suit have reached near conclusion. It would be, thus, too iniquitous to set aside the impugned orders at this stage. At the same time, the State's interest needs to be suitably protected. Civil Revision No.1896 of 2006. -3- Consequently, this revision petition is partly allowed and the impugned orders passed by the courts below are modified to the extent that in case the civil suit is still pending, the respondent shall within a period of one month from today give an undertaking by way of an affidavit before the learned Civil Court, to the effect that in case his suit fails, the petitioner-State shall be entitled to recover the excess amount of salary paid to him from his monthly emoluments and/or the retiral benefits. It shall also be desirable if the learned Civil Court can expedite disposal of the civil suit. With this modification, the revision petition is disposed of. January 11, 2008. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE