Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus H.N. KIRTANIA

Decided
12 July 1989
Judges listed
K.N. SINGH, M.H. KANIA (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[1989] 3 S.C.R. 397 · 1989 INSC 200

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Leave granted.

p. 398, margin B

This appeal is directed against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta, dated November 30, 1987.

p. 398, margin B

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 direction to report for duty at Jaipur. The respondent instead of joining 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

p. 398, margin C

respondent to join at Calcutta office and to pay all arrears of salary to him. A number of orders were passed by the High Court in respondent's favour but all those orders have been set aside by this Court in Civil Appeals arising out of Special Leave Petitions Nos. 6835 6837 of 1986. The respondent's writ petition pending before the Calcutta High Court was subsequently transferred to the Central Administra-

p. 398, margin C

tive Tribunal, Calcutta Bench. The Tribunal by its order dated 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

p. 398, margin E

release order shoulJ be issued to the respondent unless all his emoluments are paid to him.

p. 398, margin F

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 fide, thereupon it should have dismissed the writ petition. It had no 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.

pp. 398–399, margin G