M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THESE two revisions raise a question of principle in relation to interim mandatory injunctions granted by the subordinate Courts. Incidentally, they also raise a question as to the restraint which the Subordinate Courts should show when one of the affected parties is a Court employee or an association of Court employees.

( 2 ) CRP No. 550 of 1988 is a revision preferred by the District Treasury officer, Guntur, questioning the orders passed by the learned District Munsif on 23-1-1988 and by the learned District Judge on 17-2-1988 issuing mandatory directions against the petitioner to pay certain amount to the plaintiffs. CRP No. 838 of 1988 is similar in all respects, but for the fact that it arises from Prakasam District. It will be sufficient to set out the facts relating to crp No. 550 of 1985 arising from Guntur.

( 3 ) THE suit was filed immediately after Sankranti Vacation of 1988 as O S. No. 1 of 1988 by (1) the District Judicial employees Asssociation (2) the District last,grade Judicial Employees Association (3) the Head Clerk of the District Court and (4) the Process Server of the District court against the State of Andhra Pradesh represented by the District Collector, guntur and the District Treasury Officer, guntur. The relief claimed in the suit was for a mandatory injunction directing the district Treasury Officer to receive and pass the bills pertaining to surrender leave salary presented by the Drawing Officers (District Judges) under whom the employees members of the plaintiff associations are wotking. On the same day, the plaintiffs filed I A No. 5 of 1988 seeking interim mandatory injunction against the district Treasury Officer to receive and pass the bills forthwith pertaining to surrender leave salary presented by the drawing Officer (District Judge) under whom the employees were working. It is not denied that notice under section 80 cpc was dispensed with by the learned district Munsif, Guntur and the suit was entertained. A counter was filed by the district Treasury Officer, Guntur, who alone was made a party in the I. A. on 20-1-1988, contending that the petition is not maintainable and that there is no prima facie case as contended, nor balance of convenience. It is also stated that it cannot be said that the plaintiffs are put to great loss and hardship. It has been further stated that the Director of Treasuries and accounts was a necessary party and the suit as well as I,a were not maintainable without joining them as parties. The extraordinary relief mandatory injunction, it was contended, could not be granted. It was further pointed out that the 2nd defendant, the District Treasury Officer, had received a D. O. letter dated 21-12-1987 from the Director of Treasuries, Hyderabad asking him not to pass bills except the bills mentioned in the said letter. He had also received similar telegraphic orders from the superiors and a confirmation letter dated 2-1-1988. He contended that he was acting as per the directions of his superiors and that he could not be directed to honour the bills without impleading the superior authorities.

( 4 ) THE said IA for interim mandatory was taken up and thereafter orders were passed on 23-1-1988 holding that plaintiffs have made out a prima facie case and that the balance of convenience was also in favour of the plaintiffs. An appeal was preferred by the District Treasury Officer on 1-2-1988, but the same was rejected on 17-2-1988. The revision petitioner, the district Treasury Officer, then sought for stay of the order. But the same was dismissed on 18-2-1988 and in the meantime the trial Court passed an order attaching the moveable property of the Government and also directing the detention of the district Treasury Officer in civil prison the said orders were passed on 19-2-1988. At that stage the District Treasury Officer, filed the present revision and obtained order of suspension on 23-2-1988. The order was suspended inasmuch as it was r

Click Here to Read the rest of this document