Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Indranil Chakraborty vs Union Of India & Ors on 29 September, 2016
Author: Nishita Mhatre
Bench: Nishita Mhatre
1
29.09.16
Item No.7
Ct. No.17
AB
W.P.C.T. 181 of 2016
In the matter of : Indranil Chakraborty
- versus -
Union of India & Ors.
Mr. Achin Kumar Majumder
Mr. Pratik Majumder
..... for the Petitioner
Mr. Dilip Kumar Maity
.......... For the Respondent Nos. 1 - 6
Mr. Sudhir Kumar Bhowmik .... For the Respondent No. 7 This petition has been preferred against an interim order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench in O.A. 350/00699 of 2016. The Tribunal has not stayed the order of transfer issued to the Petitioner and hence this petition.
The brief facts are that the Petitioner claims that he was appointed as a Music teacher and he was transferred suddenly from Santragachi to Kharagpur. According to him this was done to accommodate respondent No. 7, Debasish Bandyopadhyay and therefore the transfer order issued to him is mala fide.
The Tribunal considered the submissions made on behalf of the Petitioner and held that he was not entitled to interim relief. It was observed by the Tribunal that unless the reply was on record and a reasonable opportunity was afforded to the respondents it would not be appropriate to grant any relief to the Petitioner and the matter was directed to be listed on 16th September, 2016. We have not been informed as to the status of the matter on 16th September, 2016.
2
The main reason according to the Railways/respondents that it was necessary to transfer the Petitioner from Santragachi to Kharagpur was because he had continued in Santragachi since the year 2000 and for administrative reasons they transferred him. The Petitioner submitted two representations against his transfer order mentioning various reasons as to why he should be retained in Santragachi. By an order dated 14th September, 2015, the Petitioner was allowed to continue in Santragachi till 25th March, 2016. He submitted a fresh representation again on 23rd November, 2015 contending that he should not be transferred to Kharagpur. However, by an order dated 8th April, 2016, the respondents released the Petitioner from Santragachi and directed him to join at Kharagpur with immediate effect. The Petitioner objected the same and challenged his transfer order.
There is no dispute that the order of appointment of the Petitioner indicates that he was appointed as Music- cum-craft teacher. The respondent No. 7 has reported at Santragachi and is working there and drawing his salary from there.
We have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties. The original application is still pending before the Tribunal for hearing. In our opinion no case has been made out for grant of interim relief especially since the release order was issued on 8th April, 2016. The Petitioner has not joined at Kharagpur on the ground that he has been directed to work as a Craft teacher rather than a Music teacher. The affidavit filed by the Railways indicated that there are no students at Santragachi who are willing to learn Hindustani Music.
3
In these circumstances, the petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. The dismissal of this petition will not prevent the Petitioner from joining at Kharagpur. It is obvious that the Tribunal will decide the original application on merits uninfluenced by observations made by us which are only prima facie. The impugned order of the Tribunal is affirmed.
Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties, upon compliance of all requisite formalities as expeditiously as possible.
(Nishita Mhatre,J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty,J.)