Present: Mr. Abdul Rafy Advocate, learned counsel for the appellants. Mr, Moazzam Habib Advocate counsel for the respondent. iB : AP heb is Fieth, be pisleret ORDER 12.08.2025 Although, the power of attorney has not been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondént but another appeal between the same parties is fixed before the court and both of the appeals have been argued by learned counsel for both the parties at length. Appellants have preferred the instant appeal against the order dated 31.07.2025 passed by the Mr. Salman Badar, Learned Civil Judge 1% Class, West, Islamabad whereby, the orders dated 28.06.2025 and 16.07.2025 passed by him have been got implemented through bailiff of the court. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the ned order is not sustainable being unjust and contradictory with the * dated 09.07.2025 passed by this court. He has also maintained that earned civil court failed to appreciate that the respondent's contract amployment duly agreed and accepted by him, is not specifically orceable in law and thus, the impugned orders whereby office order 3Suspended, are devoid of legal sanctity. He has also contended that reinstatement of the respondent amounts to mandatory injunction andit existed on such relief can only be granted to restore the status que as it He has the date of filing of suit and not to create a new state of affairs also maintained that the respondent no. 1 was not in service on the day of filing of suit so the impugned interim order amounts to granting final relief which is not legally permissible He has finally prayed for acceptance of instant appeal and setting aside of impugned order dated 31.07.2025. Learned counsel fer the respondent has vehemently opposed the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants and while supporting the impugned order has prayed for the dismissal of the same Arguments heard and record perused. Appellant (HEC) is a public body made under HEC Ordinance 2002, responsible for dealing with matters related to Higher Education in Pakistan. Respondent was appointed as an executive director and an employment contract dated 13 11.2023 was offered to him which was accepted and signed by him. The Higher Education Commission comprising its 14 members under the Chairmanship of Pro.Dr. Mukhtar Ahmed in its meeting dated 13.11.2023 unanimously appointed respondent as Executive Director (MP Scale-1) in line with the recommendation of HEC selection board held on 01.11.2023. Later on, consequent upon the approval of the commission in its meeting held on May 21°, 2025 the employment of the zspondent, the Executive Director HEC(MP-1) was terminated vide an *fice order No. 5(699)HRM-Personnel/HEC/2023-992 dated 21.05.2025 id vide office order No. 19(54)HRM-personnel /HEC/2023/996 dated 05.2025, the charge of the office of the executive director of HEC 1s assigned to Dr. Muhammad Mazhar Saeed, Advisor (P&D)/CEO, ETC thimmediate effect for a period of three months or till the appointment an executive director, whichever is earlier Feeling aggrieved from his termination, respondent: filed a suit for declaration, cancellation, permanent and mandatory injunction on 28.06.2025 against the appellants and the learned civil court vide order 5.2025 suspended the operation of office order No. Personnel/HEC/2023-992 dated 21.05.2025 and of fice order RM-personnel /HEC/2023/996 dated 21.05.2025. The saidorder dated 28.06.2025 was extended fron, time to 4 ime by the learned civil court Respondent on 18 072025 filed an “pplication under XXXTX Rule 2(LIT) and Section 94 Read With Section 151 oF ope and sought relief for the implementation of court orders dated 2g a4 2028 and 16.07.2025 alongwith other reliefs, where! *Me impugned order wag passed This court deems it appropriate to "eproduce the relevant paras of order dated 28002025 crd the impugned order dated 31.07.2025:- The relevant pore of order dated 28.06.2005 "The impugned office order No 5(699)HRM- Personnel/HEC/2023-992 dated 21.05.2025 and vide office order =» No. 1954) HRM-personnel /HEC/2023/996 dated 21.05.2025 are suspended, till next date of hearing, subject to notice.” The relevant para of order dated 31.07.2025. “Be that as it may, there is no denial of the fact that the ad-intevim injunction still holds the field and the same has not been complied with by the respondents in letter and spirit, therefore, the bailiff of this court is directed to visit the office of the respondents/HEC and to get implement the orders of the court, in letter and spirit by the respondents and to submit his report in the court on or before the next date of hearing. The bailiff is at liberty to seek police aid if so required, and the SH.) of police station concerned shall provide assistance 10 the bailiff.” It is matter of record that the respondent in his suit did not Pray for his reinstatement in the service. It is also matter of record that the respondent firstly, filed a writ petition in the Hon'ble Islamabad High Court, Islamabad perhaps on 25.05.2025 as an order dated 26.05.2025 is available in the file, It has not been claimed by the respondent either in his, writ petition on in his suit filed on 28.06.2025 that he was still performing his duty even after the issuance of aforementioned office P2HRM-Personnel/HEC/2023-992 dated 21.05.2025 and Yo. 19(54)HRM-personnel /HEC/2023/996 dated 1 can be safely concluded that the office order No.5.2025 had been 1.0: 19(54)HRM-personnel /HEC/2023/996 dated 2 : fice of the executiv id. Mazhar Saeed, A e director of implemented and the charge of the of fon HEC had been assumed by Dr. Muhamma (P&D)/CEO, ETC. Now it is to be seen, as to whether through an i ted, The object of passing of an nterim order, the respondent could have been reinsta interlocutory order or status quo is to maintain the situation obtaining on the date when the party concerned approaches the court and not to create a new situation. Another well settled principle of legal jurisprudence is that generally a court cannot grant an interlocutory relief of the nature which will amount to allowing the main case without trial/hearing of the same. In the present case as mentioned herein above, pursuant to the office orders No. 5(699)HRM-Personnel/HEC/2023-992 dated 21.05.2025 and office order No, 19(54)HRM-personnel /HEC/2023/996 dated 21.05.2025 the services of respondent had been terminated and charge of the office had been assumed by another officer, Respondent was not in office on 28.06.2025 when he instituted the suit, therefore, the learned civil judge could not have created a new situation by reinstating the respondent in his office. Reliance is placed on 1997 SCMR 1508, In view of what has been discussed above, the instant appeal is hereby accepted and the impugned order dated 31.07.2025 passed in application under XXXIX Rule 2(ITI) and Section 94 Read with section 151 of CPC is hereby set aside. Ahmed is directed to consign the file to record room after due-Cétiipletion and compilation.