- ~
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
v.
H.N. KIRTANIA
JULY 12, 1989
[K.N. SINGH AND M.H. KANIA, JJ.]
Civil Services-Transfer of public servant-Administrative
Tribunal upholding order-Directions regarding release order and pay-
ment of emoluments-Validity of
r
The respondent, a Central Government officer was transferred
from Calcutta to Jaipur by an order dated 14th March, 1985 and
relieved of his duty the next day. He, however, tiled 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
ma/a 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 unfair-
ness or ma/a fide, should have dismissed the writ petition. It had no
jurisdiction to issue further directions regarding the release order and
A
B
c
D
E
the payment of emoluments. [398H]
F
The respondent had already been relieved from the Calcutta
office with effect from 15th March, 1985. Therefore, there was no
question of issuing any fresh release order. [399A]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2942
G
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.0.
6078-W. of 1985.
397
H
398
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1989] 3 S.C.R.
A
G. Ramaswamy, Additional Solicitor General, T. C. Sharma and
y·-'
C. V. Subba Rao for the Appellants.
B
c
Girish Chandra for the Respondents.
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 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.
A
B
Lex