JUDGMENT N. K. Mody, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 16-3-2004 passed by District Judge, Neemuch in regular Civil Appeal No. 87-A/2002 whereby the judgment and decree dated 12-12-2001 passed by II Civil Judge, Class-I, Neemuch in Civil Suit No. 84-A/2000 whereby the suit filed by the respondent for declaration and permanent injunction was dismissed, was set-aside and the suit filed by the respondent was decreed, the present appeal has been filed. 2. This appeal was admitted for final hearing vide order dated 1-11-2008 on the following substantial questions of law :- 1. Whether the first Appellate Court erred in law in overlooking that a contract of employment cannot be enforced by a Civil Court? 2. Whether the first Appellate Court erred in law in granting relief overlooking the provision of the section 14 read with section 41 of Specific Relief Act? 3. Whether the first Appellate Court erred in law in holding that Ex.P/51, which was an information sent by respondent/plaintiff to the appellant/defendant, can be said to be document changing service condition mentioned in the appointment letter (Ex.P/1)? 3. Short facts of the case are that the respondent filed a suit against the appellants claiming declaration and perpetual injunction contending inter alia that the appellants herein are engaged in the business of manufacturing cement and the plant of the appellants is situated at Village-Chanderia, District-Chhitor in the State of Rajasthan. It was alleged that for the purpose of marketing of its product in the district of Mandsaur, Ratlam, Ujjain, Dhar and Jhabua a Branch was opened at Neemuch and the respondent was posted as Depot Manager. It was alleged that on 22-10-1992 respondent submitted an application on a form prescribed for the purpose wherein it was alleged that because of his family circumstance, respondent does not want any promotion and does not want to leave Neemuch City. Appellants rejected the proposal and vide order dated 8-11-1993 respondent was transferred and one Rajendra Singh Shekhawat was sent at Neemuch to take the charge of respondent and respondent was asked to report at Chhitor. In the suit it was alleged that the order of transfer dated 8-11-1993 is illegal, incorrect and deserves to be set aside. The suit was filed on 3-1-1994. During pendency of suit the respondent was retired vide order dated 16-12-1994. In the suit it was alleged that the order of transfer dated 8-11-1993 is illegal, incorrect and deserves to be set aside. The suit was filed on 3-1-1994. During pendency of suit the respondent was retired vide order dated 16-12-1994. The suit filed by the respondent was amended and it was alleged that order of retirement is illegal and the same be set aside. The suit was contested by the appellants by filing the written statement wherein it was not disputed that respondent was in employment of appellants, however, it was alleged that vide letter dated 16-12-1994 the services of respondent was terminated. It was alleged that since unit of the appellants is situated at Chhitor and appointment of the respondent is also made by the appellants from Chhitor, therefore, no suit can be filed at Neemuch as there is no territorial jurisdiction. It was alleged that job of the respondent was transferable, therefore, respondent has no case on merits. It was alleged that Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain such type of suit. It was prayed that the suit be dismissed. 4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties learned trial Court framed the issues, recorded the evidence and dismissed the suit against which an appeal was filed by the respondent which was allowed and the judgment passed by the learned trial Court was set aside holding that respondent is Officer/Manager of the Neemuch Branch of appellants. It was also declared that transfer order dated 8-11-1993 and termination order dated 16-12-1994 stands set aside and it was directed that respondent shall continue in service at Neemuch as he was earlier working on the post. It was also directed that respondent is entitled for all consequential benefits including backwages and in case of default of payment within 3 months, the respondent shall be entitled for interest @ 7% per annum which the present appeal has been filed. 5. Mr. S. C. Bagadia, learned senior counsel argued at length and submit that the impugned judgment passed by learned Appellate Court is illegal, incorrect and deserves to be set aside. It is submitted that learned Appellate Court committed error in entertaining the appeal and granting the relief. It is submitted that nobody can be compelled to remain in job against the wishes of employer by Civil Court. It is submitted that learned Appellate Court committed error in entertaining the appeal and granting the relief. It is submitted that nobody can be compelled to remain in job against the wishes of employer by Civil Court. For this contention reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of Executive Committee of Vaish Degree College, Shamli vs. Laksmi Narain, AIR 1976 SC 888 wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that a contract of personal service cannot ordinarily be specifically enforced and a Court normally would not give a declaration that the contract subsists and the employee, even after having been removed from service can be deemed to be in service against the will and consent of the employer. This rule, however, is subject to three well recognized exceptions - (i) where a public servant is sought to be removed from service in contravention of the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India; (ii) where a worker is sought to be reinstated in being dismissed under the Industrial Law; and (iii) where a statutory body acts in breach or violation of the: mandatory provisions of the statute. Learned counsel further placed reliance on a decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of MA Pearlite Liners Pvt. Ltd. vs. Manorama Sirsi, 2004(3) MPLJ (SC) 367 : AIR 2004 SC 1373 , wherein Hon'ble Apex Court while considering the declarative relief and permanent injunction relating to the services of private employment, observed that relief for declaration that employee continues to be in service of the company, amounts to enforcing a contract of personal service which is barred under the law. Reliance is also placed on a decision in the matter of Chief Engineer, Hydel Project vs. Ravinder Nath, 2008 (2) MPLJ (SC) 251 : AIR 2008 SC 1315 wherein plaintiff was employed on work charged basis till completion of project. Upon termination of services suit for declaration that order of termination was null and void was filed wherein claim by employer that termination similiciter was effected in the light of Rules under Certified Standing Orders, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that dispute fell under premise of Industrial Disputes Act, Civil Court's jurisdiction is barred and suit is liable to be dismissed. 6. 6. On the strength of aforesaid position of law, learned counsel for the appellants submit that appeal be allowed and the impugned judgment passed by learned Appellate Court be set-aside. 7. Mr. A. K. Sethi, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that no illegality has been committed by learned Appellate Court in passing the decree which is based on due appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties. It is submitted that the relief claimed by the respondent is not affected by the provisions of sections 14 and 41 of the Specific Relief Act. It is submitted that a huge amount was outstanding against the appellants towards salary and in compliance of the order dated 7-5-2004 appellants deposited only 30% of the amount as the remaining amount of salary was stayed by this Court vide order dated 7-5-2004. It is submitted that the appeal filed by the appellants have no force and no substantial question of law is involved, hence appeal be dismissed. 8. From perusal of the record it is evident that the respondent was in administrative services and initially the suit for permanent injunction was filed as the respondent was transferred. Keeping in view the position of law as observed hereinabove while considering the declarative relief and permanent injunction relating to the services of private employment for declaration that respondent continues to be in services of the company, amounts to enforcing a contract of personal service which is barred under the law. In view of this, appeal filed by the appellants is allowed and the judgment passed by the learned Court below is set aside. However, it is made clear that the emoluments which has been deposited by the appellants and withdrawn by the respondent shall not be recovered from the respondent. 9. With the aforesaid observations, appeal stands disposed of. No order as to costs.