- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Union Of India And Others v. H.N Kirtania .
Factual and Procedural Background
The respondent, serving as Public Relations Officer in the Regional Passport Office, Calcutta, was transferred to Jaipur by order dated 14-03-1985 and formally relieved from the Calcutta office with effect from 15-03-1985. Instead of joining at Jaipur, he instituted a writ petition before the Calcutta High Court and secured an interim injunction. Contempt proceedings followed, leading to a High Court order on 11-10-1985 directing the appellants to allow him to re-join in Calcutta and to pay all arrears of salary. Several further High Court orders in the respondent’s favour were subsequently set aside by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeals arising out of SLP Nos. 6835-6837 of 1986.
Thereafter, the pending writ petition was transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Calcutta Bench, which on 30-11-1987 upheld the validity of the transfer but nevertheless ordered payment of arrears and prohibited issuance of any release order until all emoluments were paid. The present appeal before the Supreme Court challenges those CAT directions.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal, having upheld the validity of the transfer, had jurisdiction to direct payment of arrears of salary and restrain issuance of a release order.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court observed that the CAT had made explicit findings that the transfer order was legal, valid, and free from mala fides or unfairness. In view of those findings, the Tribunal should have dismissed the writ petition outright. By proceeding to order payment of arrears and to bar any release order until such payment, the Tribunal acted in excess of its jurisdiction. The Court further noted that the respondent had already been relieved from the Calcutta office as of 15-03-1985, rendering any direction regarding a fresh release order improper and unnecessary.
Holding and Implications
Appeal Allowed; Impugned Directions of the Tribunal Set Aside.
Consequently, the respondent is not entitled to the arrears directed by the CAT, and no fresh release order is required. The Court made no order as to costs. The decision addresses the parties’ dispute only and sets no new precedent beyond reaffirming limits on the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
Order
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta, dated 30-11-1987.
3. 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 30-11-1987 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 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 should be issued to the respondent unless all his emoluments are paid to him.
4. 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 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 15-3-1985, 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.
Alert