Survey General of India, The Director, Karnataka Geo Spatial Data Centre and The Union of India vs T.M. Poonja

Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J.—The order dated 21.2.2013, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, in Review Application No. 37/2012, in so far as it relates to observations in paragraph-3 of the order is concerned, is called in question in this writ petition. The records reveal that the respondent herein, who was working at Bangalore in the petitioner-Organization was transferred by virtue of the transfer order dated 1.4.2011. The movement order is issued to the respondent on 5.4.2011. The transfer order as well as movement order were questioned by the respondent in Application No. 144/2011 before the Central Administrative Tribunal. Interim order came to be granted in favour of the respondent herein on 11.4.2011 directing the parties to maintain status-quo. The interim order so granted was continued from time to time till the application came to be allowed on 14.11.2011. Ultimately, Central Administrative Tribunal quashed the transfer order issued by the petitioners and consequently, the respondent continued at Bangalore.

Sri Pramod, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners brings to the notice of the Court that subsequently the respondent is transferred in accordance with law.

Be that as it may, dispute arose between the parties during the pendency of the matter before the Tribunal relating to salary to be paid in favor of respondent herein from 5.4.2011 to 14.11.2011, i.e., from the date of movement order till the date of disposal of the matter. The Tribunal after hearing, directed the Central Government to find out a via media to pay salary to the respondent, in whose favour the interim order was granted. In that context, petitioners submitted before the Tribunal that the petitioners would pay the salary to the respondent if the respondent would apply for earned leave for the period of his absence as he had enough earned leave at his credit at that point of time. However, the said proposal was not accepted by the Tribunal and ultimately the order came to be passed against the petitioners.

The petitioners filed Review Application No. 37/2012, seeking for expunging certain remarks made by the Tribunal in the order passed in Application filed by the respondent before the Tribunal. The review application came to be allowed with the following observations:--

i) The word status-quo used is to be understood in a positive manner indicating that the Tribunal is of the view that the persons themselves will hold the post which they were holding prior to order passed against them.

ii) Therefore, there cannot be any question of Dies-non arising against them and the salary paid is regular salary under any protest or pretext.

iii) Having declared so, we have processed the RA, we condone the delay whatever be the time frame whether it is in accordance with what the review applicants had stated or stated by the original applicants.

Being aggrieved by the said observations made by the Tribunal, petitioners have filed this writ petition.

Sri Pramod, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the Tribunal-while expunging the remarks made by it in its earlier order dated 14.11.2011 in. O.A. Nos. 143-147/2011, made certain other observations. According to him, the observations quoted supra, were totally unnecessary for disposal of Review Application No. 37/2012 and the same would lead financial burden to the Central Government. We do not find any ground to interfere with the observations made by the Tribunal quoted supra. The Tribunal has merely explained as to why the salary is to be paid in favour of the respondent during the period of subsistence of status-quo order. In the matter on hand, admittedly, the order of status-quo came to be passed by the Tribunal on 11.4.2011 which was continued from time to time till the disposal of the application before the Tribunal. In that context, it was contended by the petitioners that they are not obliged to take back the respondent for duty during the subsistence of status-quo order, inasmuch as the movement order was already issued. To clear the position, the Tribunal has, in the impugned order observed that the word ''status-quo'' is to be understood in a positive manner indicating that the Tribunal is of the view that the persons themselves will hold the post which they were holding prior to order passed against them and consequently, Tribunal has directed the petitioners to pay the salary to the respondent since he is not at fault. As the impugned observations simply clarify the earlier order of the Tribunal in the matter, we do not propose to interfere with such observations.

In view of the above, no interference is called for. Hence, writ petition fails and accordingly, the same stands dismissed.