Union of India & Ors. v. H.N. Kirtania

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: K.N. Singh
M.H. Kania
Judgment Date: 1989-07-12
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal Allowed; the Tribunal’s impugned directions are set aside. The transfer order is upheld as legal and valid, no fresh release order is to be issued, and there is no order as to costs.
Final Disposition: Appeal Allowed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Union of India & Ors.

Respondents

H.N. Kirtania

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• A. G. Ramaswamy
• T. C. Sharma
• C. V. Subba Rao

Counsels for Respondents

• Girish Chandra

Case Synopsis & Summary

This appeal concerns the transfer of a Central Government officer from Calcutta to Jaipur and the consequential emoluments dispute. The respondent, posted as Public Relations Officer in the Regional Passport Office, Calcutta, was transferred by order dated 14 March 1985 and relieved with effect from 15 March 1985. He filed a writ petition in the Calcutta High Court, which granted interim relief. The petition was later transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which held that the transfer was legal and not mala fide or unfair, but it directed the appellants to pay arrears of salary with allowances and to refrain from issuing a release order unless all emoluments were paid. The Tribunal’s directions went beyond merely upholding the transfer, effectively granting ancillary relief. The Union of India challenged this order before the Supreme Court. The Court found that once the Tribunal had recorded positive findings of legality and absence of mala fides, it should have dismissed the writ petition and had no jurisdiction to issue fresh release or emolument-related directions, particularly since the respondent had already been relieved from Calcutta w.e.f. 15 March 1985. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Tribunal’s directions, with no order as to costs, reinstating the validity of the transfer without additional relief.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Mala fide
Excess of jurisdiction

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants contend that the Central Administrative Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by issuing directions for payment of arrears and for a fresh release order, beyond merely upholding the transfer. They submit that the transfer order (Calcutta to Jaipur, dated 14 March 1985) was legal, valid, and not mala fide; having found the transfer to be proper, the Tribunal should have dismissed the petition. Learned counsel further argue that the respondent had already been relieved from the Calcutta office with effect from 15 March 1985, so there was no occasion for a fresh release order or retroactive emolumentary relief. Taxing the writ petition through further directions undermines executive action already taken and interferes with administrative decisions.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondent defended the challenge to the transfer and sought relief in the form of arrears and protection against immediate release. He relied on the High Court orders and the subsequent CAT proceedings that held the transfer not mala fide or unfair, and argued that a just remedy included ensuring payment of emoluments and arrears; the respondent’s position rested on receipt of interim relief and ongoing salary protections until resolution of the matter.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

A B #### c D E ~ # 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 unfairness or _ma/a fide,_ should have dismissed the writ petition. It had no jurisdiction to issue further directions regarding the release order and 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. Girish Chandra for the Respondents. B ### c 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 Administrative 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 emoluG 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 direction. 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 ## _}_