Heard Shri R.K Dixit learned counsel for applicant and Shri L.P Tiwari learned counsel for respondents.
The present O.A challenges the order of transfer of applicant vide impugned order dated 22.6.2018 (Annexure A-1). Shri L.P Tiwari appeared for respondents and seeks time to file the short counter affidavit for which he is granted 1 weeks time.
At this stage, learned counsel for applicant submitted that the operation of impugned order be stayed till further orders, which was objected to by learned counsel for respondents. Shri L.P Tiwari, Advocate for respondents has referred to Annexure A-2 and submitted that as per the relieving order dated 6.7.2018, applicant has been relieved on 6.7.2018 and there is no question of staying the impugned order which has already been implemented.
Learned counsel for applicant has firstly submitted that perusal of impugned order starts with the wording ‘the annual general transfer order’ and, therefore, the transfers have not been done in public interest or in interest of administration and placed reliance on number of citation to submit that the impugned order be stayed and secondly he relied on a judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Himanchal Pradesh in Shobh Ram v. State of H.P, 2004 (3) A.T.J 116 (Annexure A-2) to submit that even if the transfer order has been implemented and person has been relieved, it cannot be ground for refusing the stay of the operation of the transfer order.
The record shows that transfer order is dated 22.6.20128 and applicant was relieved on 6.7.2018 However, it is only after the applicant has been relieved, she has come to the Court against the impugned order.
In these circumstances, it would be in the interest of justice to hear the respondents before passing any order for interim relief and in in case, it is found that she is entitled to interim relief, order of restoration of status quo ante can otherwise be passed by the Tribunal.
List on 19.09.2018