1. SAJJAD AHMAD, J.---This appeal, by special leave, is directed against the order of a learned Single Judge of the erstwhile High Court of West Pakistan (Karachi Bench) whereby, acting in the revisional jurisdiction, and in reversal of the concurrent orders of the two Courts below, he has granted an interim injunction to the respondent restraining the appellant from forcing the respondent to accept an appointment below that of a Deputy Ranger pending the decision of the suit which the former had instituted in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge; Hyderabad, for a declaration that he was a confirmed Forest Ranger and that the orders of the appellant reverting him to the post of Forester were void, mala fide and without jurisdiction.
2. Briefly, the relevant facts are as follows :- On the 1st of March 1953, the respondent was confirmed as a Forester in the Forest Department of the former Punjab Government. After the integration of the Province of Punjab into West Pakistan, the respondent was promoted as a Deputy Ranger as a stop-gap arrangement purely on a temporary basis for six months, to begin with, which was termed as a trial period, with the express reservation of the right of the appellant to revert him (respondent) to his original post of Forester at any time without notice. On the expiry of the trial period, his work was reported to be satisfactory and he was allowed to continue as a Deputy Ranger by an order dated the 8th of April 1963. It was, however, made clear in the order that his status as a Deputy Ranger was being continued on a purely temporary basis and will not create any right or claim for him for promotion against the regular post of Deputy Ranger. Thereafter, on the 29th January 1963, the respondent was promoted as a Forest Ranger against a temporary post sanctioned for the region of Multan but once again the condition was imposed that his promo--tion was being made temporarily as a stop-gap arrangement and that he was liable to be reverted to his original rank if and when directly recruited Forest Rangers become available. This further promotion was also made for a trial period of six months whereafter his case was to be re-examined on obtaining a special report of his work from the Divisional Forest Officer concerned.
3. On the 29th of June, 1965, the services of the respondent were lent to the Agricultural Development Corporation and he was posted at Hyderabad in the service of the said Corporation where he continued to work up to the 30th June 1969. In January 1969, the respondent was informed that on his return to his parent Department i.e. The Forest Department, he would be reverted to his original rank as a Forester under an order which had been passed in this behalf by the relevant authority on the 23rd December 1968. This is the order which is the subject-matter of challenge in the civil suit instituted by the respondent wherein his main contention is that after having been promoted as a Deputy Ranger on the expiry of the trial period, which he has styled as his probationary period, and after having further promotion as a Forest Ranger and having successfully completed the trial period in that capacity also, he must be deemed to be a confirmed Forest Ranger and that his reversion now to his original post of a Forester in which he was confirmed as far back as 1953 was wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. In refusing the accompanying prayer for a temporary injunction, both the trial Judge and the learned District Judge, on appeal, have held that the respondent did not have a prima facie good case for grant of a temporary injunction as his promotions as a Deputy Ranger and subsequently as a Forest Ranger on an ad hoc basis and as a stop-gap arrangements did not confer any right on him to be confirmed in either of those jobs. The learned Single Judge in the High Court has observed that "It appears to me to be very unusual that a Government servant should be kept in a temporary state of employment for a long period of his service and the promotions earned by him in the meanwhile be accompanied by an addendum that these were purely temporary as stop-gap arrangements". He considered that the respondent's case did bring out certain aspects which needed a more thorough examination than that which the two Courts below have been able to bestow on it.
4. Lately in the case of Muhammad Umar Beg v. Sultan Mahmood (PLD1970SC139) this Court has laid down three basic considerations for the grant or refusal of temporary injunctions which are : (1) whether the plaintiff has a prima facie good case ; (2) whether the balance of convenience lies in favour of the grant or refusal of the injunction; and (3) whether the plaintiff will suffer an irreparable loss if the injunction is refused. It seems that the learned Single Judge in the High Court has not taken all these factors into consideration while issuing temporary injunction in favour of the respondent and has merely proceeded to issue it on his feeling that the two Courts below have not gone deeper into the merits of the respondent's case on the strength of the West Pakistan Forest Department (Subordinate Service) Rules, 1963, which the respondent has sought to invoke in his favour.
5. We would refrain from making any observations on the merits of the respondent's contention even prima facie, as it might prejudice his case but we are constrained to hold that either of the two other essentials for grant of a temporary injunction reproduced above is satisfied in this case to incline us to uphold the view of the learned Single Judge of the High Court. Issuance of temporary injunctions to the Government Depart--ments in respect of service matters is bound to d1sturb 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 d1sturbing the admin1strative arrange--ments of a Department. Again, there can be no question of any irreparable injury being caused to the respondent in this case by refusing the temporary injunction to him as he can claim a monetary compensation in case be succeeds in his suit and the orders of the appellant reverting the respondent to his original Most of Forester are finally he as illegal and without jurisdiction by the competent Courts In this situation, we feel that the learned Single Judge in the High Court has not proceeded on correct legal principles in granting a temporary injunction to the respondent which was refused by the trial Judge as well as the learned District Judge.
6. We accept this appeal, set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and restore that of the trial Judge. We further direct that the main suit of the respondent should be decided as expeditiously as possible. The parties will bear their own cost of this appeal.