JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition is directed against the order of learned Additional District Judge, Jodhpur dated 10-5-1989 whereby he upheld the order of Additional Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Jodhpur dated 4-7-1987 dismissing the application under order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section-151 C.P.C. 2. The only grievance of Mr. M. Mridul, learned Counsel for the petitioner is that during the suspension, his headquarter was changed from Jodhpur to Jaisalmer vide order dated 4-3-1987. Thus, the order was made illegally and with malafides. He has also submitted that the orders of the courts below are without jurisdiction and are liable to be set-aside. He has placed reliance on Chittranjan Ghose v. I.G. of Police W.B. and Ors. 1979 (2) S.L.R. 198 W.B. Khadi etc. Board v. D.P. Bhattacharya 1980 (3) S.L.R. 136 , V.C. Jammu University v. Durhiani Kumar Rampal 1977 (1) S.L.R. 591 , State Farm Corp. of India v. Tarsenlal Singh 1986 W.L.N. (UC) 516 and I.G.I. Punjab v. Balbir Singh 1973 (2) S.L.R. 271. 3. Mr. S.K. Vyas, learned Dy. Gevernment Advocate has raised preliminary objection that the petitioner who is a resident of Barmer and Pension holder of Air-Force filed a suit and made Gopal Arora, Dy. Commandent, Dr. G.P. Pilania, Director Civil Defence and Commandant General, Home Guards and the state as party and pleaded malafides without making any averments in the plaint and without impleading them a party by name in this revision. This, revision is liable to be dismissed. He has also submitted that his head- quarter can be changed in public interest. 4. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the case law cited and have also gone through the impugned orders. 5. In Chitranjan Ghosh v. I.G. Police, West Bengal , in this case during suspension period, the petitioner was asked to attend roll call otherwise his subsistence allowance will be kept 'hold over' and the period of not reporting will be dealt according to West Bengal Service Rules Regulations. It was held that during the period of suspension he may not be asked to render any service or perform any duty and directionfor attending roll call was set aside. 6. In West Bengal Khadi Board v. D.P. Bhatacharya (supra) Mr. Bhatacharya was asked not to leave head-quarter during the suspension period without permission. It was held that during the period of suspension he may not be asked to render any service or perform any duty and directionfor attending roll call was set aside. 6. In West Bengal Khadi Board v. D.P. Bhatacharya (supra) Mr. Bhatacharya was asked not to leave head-quarter during the suspension period without permission. On appeal it was quashed, and in special appeal arguments restraining the petitioner-respondent from leaving his headquarter without permission was upheld. 7. In vice Chancellor J. & K University v. Durhian K. Rampal , the petitioner was suspended holding that the petitioner is not entitled for subsistence allowance while maintaining the suspension order it was observed that the respondent was entitled to receive from the university only such susbsistance allowance may be payable under the Rules and Regulations as per terms and conditions of service. 8. In State Farm Corp. of India v. Tarsenal Singh (supra) request to change head-quarter from Suratgarh to home town is denied, it has been held not justified. It was also observed that non-payment of subsistence allowance for the absence from head-quarter is not justified. 9. In I.G. Police Punjab v. Balbir Singh , (supra), I.G. rejected mercy cum revision petition taking into consideration the chequered history, without form part of charge-sheet, held order is invalid as no opportunity was given. 10. The petitioner was posted as Civil Defence, Inspector, in the Civil Defence Department at Jodhpur. He was placed under suspension vide order dated 30.11.85. Normally, the head quarter of the incumbent should be kept at the place of posting but it can be changed under the public interest without affecting subsistence allowance. It is also well settled that during the suspension period employee is neither bound to render service nor the employer is bound to pay except subsistence allowance. At the same time a Government servant is bound by all the service conditions which are normally meant even during suspension period. Rule 13 of the CCA. Rules, 1958 provides that headquarter of a suspended employee can be changed even by the departmental authority in public interest, so it does not affect the rights of the petitioner as at the same time he will be entitled to get subsistence allowance and will get T.A. and D.A. for himself and his witnesses attending the enquiry. Thus, the court has rejected the injunction application. Thus, the court has rejected the injunction application. The scope of revision is limited one and this Court can interfere in revisional jurisdiction when the said Judge has no jurisdiction to make the order it has made or if the trial court has acted in breach of any provision of law or committed any error of procedure which was material and have effected the climate decision otherwise not, even if this Court may not agree with the conclusion of the question of fact or law. In the instant case the persons who were made party before the learned trial court have been left in this revision. Persons who were party before the trial court are necessary party till final adjudication. As such this revision can be dismissed on this point alone but since. I have already considered the case on merits and the case law cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the facts of the present case. The learned courts below have not found balance of convenience, and prima facie case in favour of the petitioner so also it has found that no irreparable injury will be caused to the petitioner. Therefore, I do not find any substance in this revision petition as no irreparable injury has been caused to the petitioner by changing his headquarter. The orders passed by the courts below cannot be said to be passed without jurisdiction or against any provision of law. 11. Hence, the revision has no force and it is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.Revision Dismissed. *******