The Bombay High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the interim order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) on 19 June 2023 in Original Application No.699/2023, by which the Tribunal had directed Respondent no. 2 to start working on the post of Tahsildar.
The Court observed that the Tribunal could have called for responses from Respondents before it and proceeded to decide the OA in an expeditious manner rather than embarking upon the exercise of removal of Petitioner and restoration of Respondent No. 2 on the post.
Brief Facts:
Petitioner was posted as Tahsildar (Revenue) in Collector Office, Nashik on 23 April 2020. By order dated 12 April 2023, one Shri Parmeshwar Ankushrao Kasule came to be transferred and posted on the post occupied by the Petitioner. He was not given any other posting and was made to wait for a posting. Order dated 16 June 2023 was issued by which Petitioner, who was waiting for posting, was transferred and posted as Tahsildar, Pune. Respondent no.2 was functioning on that post since 10 February 2020. Though Petitioner was transferred in place of Respondent no.2, no posting was granted to Respondent no.2, who was rendered as ‘waiting for posting’.
Respondent No. 2 filed O.A. before the Tribunal on 19 June 2023. It was moved before the Tribunal on the same day. The Tribunal proceeded to grant interim relief in favour of Respondent No. 2 on 19 June 2023, directing Respondent No.2 to “start working from tomorrow on her post”. Hence, the present petition. The issue before the court was to examine whether any case was made out by Respondent No. 2 in his Original Application for grant of interim mandatory injunction in the form of a ‘direction’ to him to ‘start working from tomorrow on his post’.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that an Advocate had appeared on behalf of the Petitioner in the Original Application heard by the tribunal, informing the Tribunal of the factum of the Petitioner taking over charge of the post.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that Petitioner has taken over the charge of the post in an illegal manner, to prevent Respondent No. 2 from seeking a remedy against the posting order. He submitted that merely because the charge of the post was taken over ex-parte in an illegal manner, the same cannot stand in the way of the Tribunal in granting interim relief of status quo ante.
Observations of the Court:
The Court noted that this is not a case where a strong case (higher than a prima facie case) has been made out or any serious/irreparable injury would be caused to Respondent No. 2 or that the balance of convenience is so strongly tilted in the favor of Respondent No. 2 that the Tribunal could have granted an interim mandatory injunction. The Court said that the Tribunal was aware that the transfer/posting order was already acted upon. In such circumstances, the Tribunal could have called for responses from Respondents before it and proceeded to decide the OA in an expeditious manner rather than embarking upon the exercise of removal of Petitioner and restoration of Respondent No. 2 on the post.
The Court observed that the discretion vested in the Tribunal for the grant of interim mandatory injunction is required to be exercised in rare cases and not in the routine manner in which it is exercised in the present case. The Tribunal appears to have interfered in the order of transfer in a routine manner, that too at an interim stage, and has virtually decided who should work where. However, the Court cautioned that it does not propose to lay down an absolute proposition that in every case where the charge of the post is taken over by a transferred officer, the Courts or Tribunals are rendered powerless to grant any interim relief. It would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.
The decision of the Court:
The Bombay High Court, allowing the petition, held that the interim order dated 19 June 2023 passed by the Tribunal is quashed and set aside.
Case Title: Shri. Rajendra vs The State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Hon’ble Justice Sandeep V. Marne
Case no.: WRIT PETITION NO. 7677 OF 2023
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. S.B. Talekar
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. B.V. Samant, and Mr. Gaurav Bandiwadekar
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
