The respondent who was promoted as a Deputy Controller of Branches in the Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan on probation, was ordered to be reverted to his substantive post of Assistant Regional Manager. He filed a suit to challenge this order on the 10th of June, 1975 and also filed alongwith his plaint an application for temporary injunction to restrain the petitioner from acting upon the order. The said applica--tion was dismissed by the learned trial Court on the 14th of January, 1976. But the learned Additional District Judge allowed the appeal and confirmed an order of interim injunction dated 17th January, 1976 by his order dated 11th May, 1978. The petitioner- Bank has challenged this order in this Court.
2. On going through the very detailed order of the learned Addi--tional District Judge I do not find myself in agreement with him on the question whether the present suit for declaration is competent. The learned Additional District Judge has agreed with the argument that if this had been a case of dismissal or removal, the Court jurisdiction could not be invoked for a declaration in view of the position that the relationship between the petitioner and the respondent is that of the master and the servant and only a suit for damages would have been competent. Then he drew a distinction between a case of dismissal or removal on the one hand and a case of demotion on the other and found that the respondent did have a prima facie case.
3. Even if the petitioner's suit had been competent, the injunction order should not have been issued in view of the law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Shahzada Muhammad Umar Beg v. Sultan Mahmood Khan and another (PLD 1970 SC 139) which was also a case of reversion. It was held that there would be no irreparable loss and injury in such service cases since the plaintiff can be compensated for the loss suffered by him after the passing of the decree.
Again in Province of West Pakistan v. Malik Asghar Khan (1971 SCMR 569) it was pointed out that issuance of temporary injunction to the Department concerned in respect of service matters is bound to disturb their working and they should not ordinarily .Be issued unless there are compelling reasons to do so because balance of convenience ordinarily would not lie in disturbing the administrative arrangements. It was further added that there can be no question of any irreparable injury being caused to the employee by refusing the temporary injunction to him as he can claim monetary compensation in case he succeeds in his suit and the orders of the Government reverting the plaintiff to his original post are finally held as illegal and without jurisdiction by the competent Courts.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent, however, relied upon a decision in C. R. 896/1972 in which a temporary injunction was granted to loan salaried Government Servants in regard to unilateral decision of reduction of their salaries which amounted to a continuing breach of Constitutional obligations regarding salary. These authorities were distinguished in that case and distinction was made between the cases of that type and cases where the question of salary is not directly involved in the suit as in the present case but would be consequential upon the decree setting aside an order impugned in the suit.
5. The case thus is clearly distinguishable. On the other hand the authorities of the Supreme Court referred to above are on all force with the facts of the present case. Learned counsel has also relied upon The Government of Sind v. Ghulam Muhammad (1973 SCMR 96) in which an injunction order issued by the Court and maintained subsequently, in a service matter, was not disturbed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court. There is no point of law decided in that case as was done in the Supreme Court's authorities already referred to above. Probably that was a case where the Court came to a conclusion that there were compelling reasons for grant of injunction. This case does not help the respondent.
6. In the present case no case of such compelling reasons can be said to have been made out. This is a simple case of promotion by the Chairman of the Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan subject to the condition of keeping the respondent on special report for 6 months to know his worth. It appears from the document shown to me by the learned counsel for the respondent that there were reports of disobedience of orders of his officers by the respondent. In these circumstances the Court cannot thrust the respondent upon the Bank in the capacity in which he was promoted. If the suit be competent and he ultimately succeeds in it, he will be entitled to claim the arrears of his salary and that would compensate him for whatever damage he is likely to suffer.
7. In my view the learned Additional District Judge has clearly acted illegally and with material irregularity in the exercise of his jurisdic--tion by refusing to act upon the above Supreme Court's cases. I, there--fore, allow this petition with costs, set aside the order of the learned Additional District Judge and dismiss the application to temporary injunction.