2025:HHC:25965 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No. 443 of 2025 Decided on : 04.08.2025 Gagan Pradeep. …Petitioner Versus The H.P. State Forest Development Corporation Ltd., Shimla and others. …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Kiran Dhiman, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) Notice. Ms. Kiran Dhiman, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following relief:- “That the impugned judgment dated 08.07.2025 passed by Learned District Judge, Mandi, District Mandi (H.P.), in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 15 of 2025 (Annexure P-10) may 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:25965 kindly be set aside and the order dated 17.01.2025 (Annexure P-8) may kindly be affirmed” 3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 08.07.2025, passed by the learned District Judge, Mandi, in terms whereof the order passed by the learned Trial Court, in an application filed under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, granting interim relief during the pendency of a Civil Suit filed by the petitioner relating to the date of his superannuation, has been set aside. 4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in terms of an earlier decree passed by the learned Civil Court in favour of the petitioner, his date of birth stands determined as 16.10.1969, yet the employer is still treating the date of birth to be 16.10.1964 and is superannuating him by construing the said date to be his actual date of birth. In these circumstances, the subsequent Civil Suit had been filed, in which interim was granted by the learned Trial Court. Accordingly, he submitted that the order passed by the learned Appellate Court is perverse and is liable to be set aside. 3 2025:HHC:25965 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents-Corporation has defended the order. She submitted that it is settled law that main relief cannot be granted as an ad-interim or interim relief and this is exactly what has been held by the learned Appellate Court. She submitted that in the light of the said fact as there is no perversity in the order under challenge, the petition deserves dismissal. 6. Having heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondents and taking into consideration the controversy involved between the parties in the Civil Suit which is pending before the learned Trial Court, this Court is of the considered view that there is no need to interfere with the order passed by the learned Appellate Court. If interim is granted and if the suit is decided against the plaintiff, it would be difficult for the employer to recover the wages paid to him. On the contrary, if no interim is granted to the plaintiff and the respondents superannuate him by treating his date of birth to be 16.10.1964, then obviously his superannuation shall abide by the final outcome of the Civil Suit 4 2025:HHC:25965 and in case, the plaintiff succeeds, he obviously will be compensated by the learned Court below, in terms of the prayer made in the Civil Suit. 7. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of without interfering with the order passed by the learned Appellate Court, but with the observation that in case the petitioner has already attained the age of superannuation, in terms of his service record, then till the adjudication of the Civil Suit, no recoveries shall be effected from him. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge August 04, 2025 (Shivank Thakur)