The applicant has earlier filed OA-2007/2009 praying for quashing illegal transfer order issued by Respondent No.2 on mala fide grounds and extraneous considerations. This Tribunal clubbed together all the OAs of similar nature and heard them together viz. OA Nos. from 2008 to 2012 of 2009 and OA-2619 of 2009 against the impugned transfer orders, taking 2007/2009 as the principal case. All these OAs were allowed vide this Tribunals order dated 11.12.2009 whereby the impugned transfer orders were quashed and the applicants were ordered to be restored to their earlier status based on such consequence.

2. The respondents version is that the applicants served a copy of the aforesaid order of 11.12.2009 upon the respondents counsel on 31.12.2009 and forthwith started abandoning their posts and rushed to Delhi to submit joining reports even without waiting for the respondent council to peruse the order and respond to it. After discussing with their counsel, the NCERT decided to prefer writ against the said order on 11.1.2010 and accordingly informed the applicants of the same. The applicants filed caveat in the High Court. The writ petition being WP No.813/2010 challenging the said order along with an application for stay of the operation thereof during the pendency of the petition being CM No.1708/2010 was filed on 30.01.2010. The matter was listed for hearing on 08.02.2010, when after hearing both the parties, the Honble High Court was pleased to issue notice to the respondents (applicant herein) returnable on 16.3.2010. The order dated 08.02.2010 is excerpted below:-  C.M. No.1709/2010 (exemptions). Allowed, subject to just exceptions. W.P. (C ) No.813/2010 The allegations of the petitioner is that there is no teaching work in NCERT Headquarters for any of the Professors/Readers/ Lecturers posted at Delhi. According to the petitioner, the respondents are primarily involved in research work and considering the urgent requirements, they had to be posted at different places. The transfer, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, was also necessitated on account of delay in the process of recruitments. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Tribunal has not dealt with and considered this administrative exigency of the petitioner in its impugned judgment. Issue show cause notice to the respondents as to why Rule Nisi be not issued. Mr. Abhirup Dasgupta accepts notice for respondent No.1 and Mr. M.S.Saini accepts notice for respondents No.2 to 8 and seek time to file the replies. Replies be filed within four weeks. Rejoinders, if any, before the next date of hearing. List on 6th May,2010. C.M.No.1708/2010 Issue notice to the respondents. Mr.Abhirup Dasgupta accepts notice for respondent No.1 and Mr. M.S. Saini accepts notice for respondents No.2 to 8 and seek time to file the replies. Replies be filed within four weeks. List on 6th May,2010. Caveat No.22/2010 Notices have been accepted by learned counsel for the respondents. The caveat stands discharged.

3. In the meantime, on 05.02.2010 the applicant filed the present Misc. application under Section 27 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, read with Rule 24 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules,1987 seeking direction to the respondents to give effect to Tribunals order dated 11.12.2009 immediately.

4. The main thrust of the applicants case is that since there is no order of the Delhi High Court staying the operation of this Tribunal, the respondents are duty bound to execute/implement the Tribunals order and merely filing a writ petition along with stay application would not absolve them from their responsibility to do so. Of course, implementation of this Tribunals order might, indeed, be subject to the final outcome of the decision in writ petition.

5. On the other hand, the respondents case is that since the respondents have filed the writ petition and also sought stay of operation of the impugned order which is pending disposal, it would not be fair and in the interest of justice to insist upon implementation of the impugned order. If the respondents are asked to implement the impugned order, it would gravely prejudice their case in the writ petition and especially the stay application and may even render it infructuous. It is, therefore, submitted that the present application may be adjourned sine die till the dispose of the present writ petition.

6. At the hearing of the application, the learned counsel for the applicant Shri M.S.Saini strongly urged that the Tribunal, in the instant case, has already granted the relief while quashing the impugned order and directing restoration of earlier status of the applicants. That being so, no formal order is necessary to give effect to the Tribunals order. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has referred to and relied upon the case of E.S.Rajabather Vs. Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Transport, New Delhi (1990 (14) Administrative Tribunals Case 292). The learned counsel made further reference to ICICI Bank Limited Vs. Klen & Marshalls Manufacturers & Exporters Limited and the Registrar of Companies, Tamil Nadu, Chennai. (Company Law Board, Southern Region Bench, Chennai CA No.1/63A/SRB/2000) wherein it has been held that mere filing of an appeal pending consideration would not prohibit the Company Law Board from executing its order in the absence of any stay order.

7. The applicants counsel also referred to and relied upon Kamal Kishore Vs. Shri Sidharth Bahure & Anr. (CP-174/2008 in OA811/2008 decided on 21.10.2008) wherein the respondents were directed to comply with the directions subject to the outcome of the decision in writ petition. The learned counsel further referred to K.I.Thomas and others Vs. Union of India and others (1993 (25) ATC 789) to show that implementation of the beneficial judgment of the Tribunal could not be withheld by the Government on the ground of public interest. The learned counsel for the applicant further referred to order passed in the case of UOI and Anr. Vs. M.J.A. Khan and Anr. (WP (C ) 7652/2009 and CM No.3825/2009) on 20.07.2009, wherein the Honble High Court declined to proceed further in the matter until the order of the Tribunal is complied with since it appears that the petitioner has violated specific orders passed by the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the Tribunal can execute its own order as it has the power under the Contempt of Courts Act. In this connection, he has referred to M.Ganeshsan Vs. A.K.Belwal (2003(2) ATJ 458). Futher, reference has been made to Union of India and Ors. Vs. Suraj Bhan (2004(1) CAT (Jodhpur Bench) 330) wherein it has, inter alia, been held that until and unless there is a stay order from the higher forum i.e. the Honble High Court , the Tribunals order is required to be obeyed and by no stretch of imagination mere decision to file review application before the High Court can be a ground for seeking extension of time for implementing the judgment.

8. The respondentscounsel Shri R.K. Singh, on the other hand, very strongly urged that if the respondents are made to take action in compliance with the order of the Tribunal which is appealed against and even during the pendency of the stay application that would render their application infructuous. In support of this contention, the learned counsel referred to Modern Food Industries (India) Ltd. And Another Vs. Sachidanand Dass and Another (1995 Supp. (4) SCC 465). The learned counsel has specifically drawn my attention to Para 4 of this judgment as follows: If, without considering the prayer for stay, obedience to the Single Judges order was insisted upon at the pain of committal for contempt, the appellants may find, as has now happened, the very purpose of appeal and the prayer for interlocutory stay infructuous. It is true that a mere filing of an appeal and an application for stay do not by themselves absolve the appellants from obeying the order under appeal and that any compliance with the learned Single Judges order would be subject to the final result of the appeal. But then the changes brought about in interregnum in obedience of the order under appeal might themselves be a cause and source of prejudice. Wherever the order whose disobedience is complained about is appealed against and stay of its operation is pending before the Court, it will be appropriate to take up for consideration the prayer for stay either earlier or at least simultaneously with the complain for contempt. To keep the prayer for stay stand-by and to insist upon proceeding with the complaint for contempt might in many conceivable cases, as here, cause serious prejudice.

9. Thus, where an appeal is filed against the order whose compliance is sought, no case would be made out for any action of Contempt of Court in this case, as has been held by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Narain Dev and others Vs. Punjab University and others (1989 Supp(2)SCC 407). The learned counsel for the respondents further referred to the case of Mool Chand Yadav and Another Vs. Raza Buland Sugar Company Limited, Rampur and others (1982 (3) SCC 484) where in the circumstances of the case, it has been held that during the pendency of the appeal any order having serious civil consequences must be stayed.

10. I have given my careful consideration to the respective submissions of both the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case.

11. The order of 11.12.2009 whose implementation is being sought in these proceedings, does not stipulate any time limit for that purpose. If that order is to be executed like other orders the Tribunal ought to have passed in the matter in terms of Section 27 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, no further order would be necessary. Acting upon such an assumption, the applicants have abandoned their posts to which they were transferred and rushed to Delhi to submit their joining reports even without waiting for appropriate order and without understanding the administrative difficulties such as absence from place of posting, no salary and reporting duties within ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The applicants were informed that the respondents have decided to file writ petition against the order in question. Thereupon, the applicants filed caveat in the High Court. They were heard and WP (C ) No.813/2010 along with C.M. No.1709/2010 whereupon the High Court issued notices which were duly accepted by the applicants counsel seeking time to file reply thereto. Thus, in these circumstances of the case it would not be expedient to issue any direction for execution of the order in question which may have the effect of rendering the proceedings in writ petition No.813/2010 seeking stay of the operation of the order in question during the pendency of writ petition infructuous..

12. It may be relevant to mention that under Section 27 of the Act, this Tribunal has power for execution of its order which vests in the Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure. Though the Tribunal is not bound by the provisions of CPC in terms of Section 2 of the Act, nevertheless the principles embodied in the Code of Civil Procedure and the procedure prescribed therein can be applied in appropriate cases.

13. Having regard to the provisions of Order XXI Rules 26 and 29 and Order XXXXI Rule 5 CPC, I am of the considered view that the present case is not fit for issuance of the direction as prayed for at the present stage, specially in view of the fact that the order in question does not stipulate time limit for its implementation. There has been no delay on the part of the respondents in the matter in approaching the Honble High Court which is presently seized of the at hand in these proceedings.

14. In these circumstances, it would be appropriate for the parties to wait for outcome of decision on stay application against the impugned order in question and thereupon to take appropriate action for revival of this application for further consideration, if need be. (Dr. Dharam Paul Sharma) Member (A) /usha/