ASHOK AGARWAL, J.:---The archaic maxim "Personal Services cannot be specifically enforced" should no longer be permitted to hold the field in the modern and changed times, is the burden of the song which Mr. Singhavi has tried to put to tune in the present Notice of Motion.

2. In a suit for declaration that the termination of his service is illegal, the present Notice of Motion claims interim reliefs restraining the defendants from withdrawing certain perquisites which the plaintiff enjoyed while in service.

3. During the period February, 1984 and end of March, 1994 the plaintiff employed with the defendants as General Manager (Operations). The plaintiff has annexed at Exhibit-B to the plaint, a letter dated the 10th of February, 1984 under which the plaintiff was employed. The letter contained several Terms and Conditions of employment. Clauses 10 and 15, which are relevant for the present enquiry, provides as under :

"10. If, at any time in our opinion, which is final in this matter, you are insolvent or found guilty of dishonesty, disobedience, disorderly behaviour, negligence, indiscipline, absence from duty without permission or of any other conduct considered by us detrimental to our interest, or of violation of one or more terms of this letter, your services may be terminated without notice.

15. Your appointment may be terminated at any time, without assigning any reason, by three months notice in writing by either side. Your appointment may also be terminated by the Company, without notice, by payment to you of an amount equivalent to three months consolidated salary. It is also left to the discretion of the Company to decide whether the period of any notice shall run concurrently with the period of any leave which may be due or may be granted to you. In case you leave our employment without notice, we shall have the right to deduct as liquidated damages an amount equivalent to three months consolidated salary from any money or monies that may be due to you."

4. In August, 1993 the plaintiff applied for being appointed to the post of Chief Executive Officer for which the defendants had advertised. The defendants, however, instead of accepting the offer started pursuading the plaintiff to tender his resignation. The plaintiff was, thus, pursuaded to tender a resignation letter dated 27th of August, 1993. A copy of the resignation letter is annexed at Exhibit-A to the plaint. The letter informs the defendants that due to family reasons the plaintiff was resigning from service. The aforesaid resignation was accepted by the defendants on the 14th of February, 1994. The acceptance was directed to take effect from the 31st of March, 1994. In the meanwhile, the plaintiff, it appears, gave a second thought and by a letter dated the 1st of March, 1994 sought to withdraw the resignation. By a communication dated the 11th of March, 1994 the defendants informed the plaintiff that the withdrawal was unacceptable as the company had already appointed another person to his post. The defendants, by another letter of the same date, informed the plaintiff about the grant of increment of Rs. 1,000 per month for the period 1st September, 1993 to 31st of March, 1994 in line with the increments granted to the other senior executives.

5. On the 28th of March, 1994 the plaintiff filed, in the City Civil Court, Suit No. 2013 of 1994 seeking to impugn the refusal of the defendants to accept the withdrawal of resignation. In the suit, ad-interim relief was refused. The plaintiff, on the 30th of March, 1994, preferred an appeal being A.O. No. 374 of 1994. On the 31st of March, 1994 the defendants terminated the services of the plaintiff by offering three months salary under Clause 15 of the terms of appointment dated the 10th of February, 1984. With the termination, the appeal from order was withdrawn as the same had become infructuous. Pursuant to the liberty granted, the plaintiff has, on the 6th of April, 1994, filed the present suit.

6. In