Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Union Of India & Others vs Milan Chandra Naskar & Others on 11 February, 2014
Author: Nishita Mhatre
Bench: Nishita Mhatre
1
18 11.02.14
rpan Ct. No.17 W.P.C.T. No.29 of 2014
In the matter of: Union of India & Others
Petitioners
Vs.
Milan Chandra Naskar & Others
Respondents
Mr. Ashok Kumar Chakraborty Mr. Sanjit Kumar Ghosh ... for the Petitioners Mr. Rabilal Moitra Mr. Taimur Hossain ... for the Respondent No.1 The Respondent No.1, who is an employee of Prasar Bharati, was transferred from Bhubaneshwar to Kolkata by an order dated 3rd January, 2014. However, immediately thereafter by an order dated 7th January, 2014 the earlier order, transferring him to Kolkata, was "put on hold" in view of the Directorate's order of 7th January, 2014.
Aggrieved by the order of 7th January, 2014 the Respondent no.2 has approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench.
The Central Administrative Tribunal while admitting the Original Application has directed that the Respondent No.2 should be allowed to report in Kolkata as he had been issued a release order at Bhubaneshwar. Directions for filing affidavits were also passed and the matter is directed to be listed on 17th February, 2014.
It appears that a contempt petition has also been filed as the Petitioners allegedly did not comply with the order of the Tribunal by permitting the Respondent No.2 to join duty in Kolkata.
Mr. Chakraborty, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners submits that although the Tribunal was apprised of 2 the fact that the release order had already been modified and the Respondent No.2 had been directed to report to Bhubaneshwar with immediate effect by an order of 15th January, 2014, the Tribunal directed that the Respondent No.1 should be allowed to join in Kolkata. He further submits that the period granted for filing the affidavit-in-reply is too short and, therefore it should be extended. The learned Counsel also submits that grave hardship would be caused to the Petitioners if the present order is not stayed as the Respondent No.1 has already filed an application for contempt of the order of the Tribunal dated 21st January, 2014 which is impugned in the present petition.
On considering the submissions at the Bar, in our view, the following orders will meet the ends of justice:
1. The Respondent no.1 need not report to Bhubaneshwar during the pendency of the Original Application.
2. The Respondent No.2 shall be paid salary in Kolkata during the pendency of the Original Application.
3. No disciplinary action will be taken against the Respondent No.2 for not reporting to work in Bhubaneshwar while the Original Application is pending.
4. However, the direction of the Tribunal to permit the Petitioner to join at Kolkata Office is stayed.
As the time for filing the affidavits has expired, the Petitioners shall file their reply by 28th February, 2014. The 3 Respondent No.2 may file his rejoinder within a week thereafter.
The writ petition is disposed of.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Photostat plain copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned Counsels for both the parties on usual undertakings.
(Nishita Mhatre, J.) (Subrata Talukdar, J.)