Judgment U.N.Sinha, J. 1. This application has been filed by the defendant in a pending suit. It is directed against the order of the learned District Judge, affirming the order of the learned Munsif, granting an injunction in favour of the plaintiff until the disposal of the suit instituted by him. The facts necessary for the decision of this application are as follows. According to the plaintiff, he was employed as a "C" grade engine driver under the Eastern Railway and during the course of his employment, an accident had happened on the 14th of June, 1960, the train driven by the plaintiff had collided with a pilot engine which was standing on the down main line at Kusunda. As a result of this accident, an enquiry had been held and the Divisional Mechanical Engineer of Dhanbad reduced the pay of the plaintiff, for six months, from Rs. 105/- to Rs. 95/-, by his order dated the 5th January, 1961. Thereafter certain proceedings were taken by the Divisional Superintendent (Transport) of Dhanbad, who passed an order on the 25th of March, 1951, ordering the removal of the plaintiff from service, the removal to be effective from the 1st of May, 1961. The present suit was instituted on the 10th of April, 1961. The substantial reliefs claimed by the plaintiff are as follows: "(a) For a declaration that the order of the Divisional Mechanical Engineer reducing the time scale of the plaintiff as per his letter dated 5-1-61 and the order of removal of the plaintiff from his services passed by the Divisional Supdt. Transport as per his letter dated 25-3-51 is illegal, unconstitutional, null and void and the plaintiff is entitled to continue in his service as usual. (b) for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from removing the plaintiff from his services." Thereafter the plaintiff filed an application under Order 39 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for a temporary injunction during the pendency of the suit. The, prayer in this petition was to the effect that a temporary injunction may be granted restraining the defendant from removing the plaintiff from his service till the disposal of the suit. This matter was considered by the learned Munsif and on hearing the parties, the learned Munsif has passed an order in favour of the plaintiff, granting a temporary injunction against the defendant. This matter was considered by the learned Munsif and on hearing the parties, the learned Munsif has passed an order in favour of the plaintiff, granting a temporary injunction against the defendant. An appeal was carried by the defendant to the Court of appeal below and the learned District Judge has affirmed the order of the learned Munsif. The, learned District Judge has held that the plaintiff has been able to make out a prima facie case in his favour for the grant of temporary injunction. The learned Judge has also found that the balance of convenience lay in favour of the plaintiff, as he will be deprived of his pay unless a temporary injunction is granted, and various other amenities will also be denied to him if a temporary injunction is not granted in favour of the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the plaintiff is not entitled to claim in this suit that he should be retained in service and that all that can be decreed in the plaintiffs favour, if he succeeds at all is a decree for his arrears of pay, if he has asked for it in the suit. It is urged that the temporary injunction granted in this case is manifestly illegal. It appears to me that this contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is not of force. The present suit instituted by the plaintiff is only for a declaration and for an order of injunction restraining the defendant from removing the plaintiff from service. The plaintiff has not prayed for a decree for arrears of his salary. If the plaintiff is entitled to ask for a declaration that the order of removal was unconstitutional and illegal, the plaintiff can certainly make a prayer for an injunction restraining the defendant from removing the plaintiff from his service. Under the circumstances, there cannot be a bar to the grant of a temporary injunction during the pendency of the suit, if a prima facie case is found in favour of the plaintiff and it the balance of convenience also lies in favour of an order of temporary injunction. Both the Courts below have concurrently held that there is a prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff and there was a balance of convenience in his favour also. Both the Courts below have concurrently held that there is a prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff and there was a balance of convenience in his favour also. Under the circumstances, it is not possible to interfere with the order passed by the learned District Judge, under the provisions of Sec.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has then submitted that the order of temporary injunction passed to this case may be interpreted to mean that the plaintiff is entitled to ask the defendant to put him in charge of an engine to be run by the plaintiff, whereas the defendant has no faith in the ability of the plaintiff in running an engine. It appears to me that the apprehension of learned Counsel for the petitioner in this context unfounded. Ail that the temporary injunction granted by the Courts below mean is that the defendant will be restrained from removing the plaintiff from Ms service, until the decision of the suit pending in the trial Court. 3. It appears that this is a fit case in which the suit should be decided as expeditiously as possible. Learned counsel for both the parties have stated that their clients have no objection to an early disposed of the suit. The trial Court will, therefore, make its best effort to dispose of the suit at an early stage, and, it possible, before the end of March, 1963, 4. The application must fail and is dismissed with costs. Hearing fee is assessed at Rs. 32/-.