Union of India & Ors. v. H.N. Kirtania

ORDER Leave granted. This appeal is directed against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta, dated November 30, 1987. The respondent was posted as Public Relations Officer in the Regional Passport Office, Calcutta. He was transferred from Calcutta to Jaipur under the order dted 14.3.1985, and he was relieved of his duty from Regional Passport Office, Calcutta w .e.f. 15.3.1985 with the L) direction to report for duty at Jaipur. The respondent instead of join­ ing at Jaipur filed a writ re ti ti on before the Calcutta High Court and obtained interim injunction. Later on contempt proceedings were initiated by the respondent against the appellants and the High Court passed an order dated 11.10.1985 directing the appellants to allow the respondent to join at Calcutta office and to pay all arrears of salary to E him. A number of orders were passed by the High Court in respon­ dent's favour but all those orders have been set aside by this Court in Civil Appeals arising out of Special Leave Petitions Nos. 6835 to 6837 of 1986. The respondent's writ petition pending before the Calcutta High Court was subsequently transferred to the Central Administra­ tive Tribunal, Calcutta Bench. The Tribunal by its order dated F November 30, 1987 disposed of the writ petition. The Tribunal held that the order of transfer was not mala fide or unfair, and there was no ground for inter!ering with the transfer order. After recording that finding the Tribunal directed the appellants to pay all arrears of salary with allowances to the respondent with a further direction that no release order shoulJ be issued to the respondent unless all his emolu- G ments are paid to him. After hearing learn~d counsel for the parties we find that the Tribunal acted in excess of its jurisdiction in issuing impugned direc­ tion. The Tribunal recorded positive findings that the transfer order was legal and valid and it was not vitiated by any unfairness, or mala !if fide, thereupon it should have dismissed the writ petition. It had no .. } U.0.1. v. H.N. KIRTANIA 399 jurisdiction to issue further directions regarding the release order and the payment of emoiuments. The Tribunal lost sight of the fact that the respondent had already been released from the Calcutta office w.e.f. 15.3.1985, therefore, there was no question of issuing any fresh release order. We accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the impugned directions of the Tribunal. There will be no order as to costs. P.S.S. Appeal aHowed.