Union of India, The Superintendent of Police and The Senior Superintendent of Police and The Superintendent of Police vs The Central Administrative Tribunal Madras and I. Pravinkumar

M.M. Sundresh, J.—When the Miscellaneous Petition seeking to vacate the interim stay already granted on 29.5.2013, came up for

consideration today, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the main Writ Petitions themselves are taken up for final disposal.

These two Writ Petitions have been filed by the Government of Puducherry challenging the common order 27.3.2013 passed by the Central

Administrative Tribunal in O.A. Nos. 1126 of 2012 and 1344 of 2012 whereby the order of transfer dated 12.9.2012 passed against the

respondent was set aside with consequential direction to pay him all the salary and emoluments from September 2012 onwards by way of treating

him as continued to be in service for all purposes during the interregnum period, along with Diwali Bonus and Dearness Allowance arrears.

We have perused the order passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal took pains to consider the materials placed before it. The Second

Respondent/Applicant has made reliance upon the report sent by him to the Senior Superintendent of Police on 20.8.2012, pertaining to a threat

made by a Member of Legislative Assembly over phone. The incident has also been recorded in the General Diary. The fact that the report has

been sent by the Second Respondent/Applicant to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Karaikal, and the alleged incident having been recorded in

the General Diary, are not in dispute. These facts have been taken note of by the Tribunal while coming to the conclusion that the order of transfer

is tainted with mala fide and extraneous consideration. There is no material that has been placed before us to discredit the said factual finding given

by the Tribunal.

However, when the matter is taken up for hearing today, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the Petitioners/Government of

Puducherry has produced an order dated 06.9.2013 by which the Second Respondent/Applicant has been posted to the Coastal Police Station,

Karaikal, till the academic year 2013 14.

Learned counsel appearing for the Second Respondent/Applicant has also accepted the said order. In fact, the Second Respondent/Applicant

himself has sought for continuance till the end of the Academic Year 2013 14 in view of the fact that his children are studying at Karaikal.

In such view of the matter, we permit the Second Respondent/Applicant to work at Coastal Police Station, Karaikal, till the end of Academic

Year 2013 14. Since we have upheld the findings of the Tribunal based upon which decisions have been rendered, the order passed by it granting

monetary benefits to the Second Respondent/Applicant would stand as it is. Further more, the Second Respondent/Applicant was not permitted to

rejoin inspite of the order of stay of the Transfer order passed by the Tribunal by order dated 26.9.2012.

The Supreme Court in the decision reported in 2004 (11) SCC 550 (Electronics Corporation of India Ltd., and others vs. Sateesh S. Rao

Sonawalkar) considered a similar issue of not permitting Government servant to join inspite of grant of stay of Transfer order and ordered to pay

salary as long as the stay order was in force. In paragraphs 8 and 9 of the order, the Supreme Court has held thus:-

Para 8: "".... We, however, find that the respondent had on 19.7.1995 obtained the stay order of his transfer. The respondent reported on duty with

that order on the next day. The appellants sat tight over the matter for a period of five months, without bringing to the notice of the Court that the

respondent stood relieved on 17.7.1995 and moved for vacation of the stay order only on 19.12.1995 and the stay order was vacated only on

8.4.1996, that is to say, the stay order remained operative w.e.f. 19.7.1995 till the date of its vacation, i.e. on 8.4.1996. The respondent had

made himself available and had reported on duty on 20.7.1995. This kind of relieving order, if passed on 17.7.1995, should have been brought to

the notice of the Court at the earliest, rather than to allow it to continue for such a long time even though appearance on behalf of the appellants

was put in before the Court much earlier. In the circumstances, the case of relieving of the respondent in the manner as indicated by the appellants

is not liable to be accepted.

Para 9: Therefore, we provide that the period from 17.7.1995 to 8.4.1996 shall be treated as the period spent on duty and the appellants shall pay

full salary for the said period....

Applying the said judgment to the facts of this case, the Petitioner/Government of Puducherry is directed to make payment of all benefits which

have not been paid already including monetary benefits and increment, as ordered by the Tribunal within a period of eight weeks from the date of

receipt of a copy of this order.

The Writ Petitions are disposed of with the above directions and observations. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are

closed.