http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: H.N. KIRTANIA

DATE OF JUDGMENT12/07/1989

BENCH: SINGH, K.N. (J) BENCH: SINGH, K.N. (J) KANIA, M.H.

CITATION:  1989 AIR 1774            1989 SCR  (3) 397  1989 SCC  (3) 447        JT 1989 (3)   132

ACT:     Civil  Services--Transfer  of public   servant--Adminis- trative   Tribunal  upholding  order--Directions   regarding release order and payment of emoluments----Validity of.

HEADNOTE:     The respondent, a Central Government officer was  trans- ferred from Calcutta to Jaipur by an order dated 14th March, 1985  and  relieved of his duty the next day.  He,  however, filed a writ petition before the High Court and obtained  an interim injunction.     The  writ petition was subsequently transferred  to  the Central  Administrative Tribunal, which held that the  order of  transfer was not mala fide or unfair, and there  was  no ground  for interfering with it. It, however,  directed  the appellants  to pay all arrears of salary with allowances  to the respondent and not to issue the release order unless all his emoluments were paid. Allowing the appeal,     HELD:  The  Tribunal having recorded  positive  findings that  the transfer order was legal and valid and it was  not vitiated  by any unfairness or mala fide, should  have  dis- missed  the writ petition. It had no jurisdiction  to  issue further  directions  regarding  the release  order  and  the payment of emoluments. [398H]     The  respondent had already been relieved from the  Cal- cutta  office with effect from 15th March, 1985.  Therefore, there  was no question of issuing any fresh  release  order. [399A]

JUDGMENT:     CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2942  of 1989.     From  the  Judgment and Order dated 30.11. 1987  of  the Calcutta  Central Administrative Tribunal Court in T.A.  No. 452 of 1987/C.O. 6078-W. of 1985. 398     G. Ramaswamy, Additional Solicitor General, T.C.  Sharma and C.V. Subba Rao for the Appellants. Girish Chandra for the Respondents.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

The following Order of the Court was delivered:                            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 dated 14.3.1985, and he  was relieved of his duty from Regional Passport  Office, Calcutta  w.e.f. 15.3.1985 with the direction to report  for duty at Jaipur. The respondent instead of joining at  Jaipur filed  a  writ petition 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 him. A number  of orders were passed by the High Court in respondent’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 Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench.  The Tribunal  by its order dated 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 interfering with the transfer order.  After  re- cording 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  should  be issued to the respondent unless all his emoluments are  paid to him.     After  hearing learned counsel for the parties  we  find that  the  Tribunal acted in excess of its  jurisdiction  in issuing  impugned direction. The Tribunal recorded  positive findings that the transfer order was legal and valid and  it was not vitiated by any unfairness, or mala fide,  thereupon it should have dismissed the writ petition. It had no 399 jurisdiction  to  issue  further  directions  regarding  the release  order and the payment of emoluments.  The  Tribunal lost sight of the fact that the respondent had already  been released from the Calcutta office w.e.f. 15.3. 198S,  there- fore,  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 allowed. 400