(1) THE respondent was originally appointed temporarily as a Security Guard in the office of the Special Commissioner, Government of Goa, Daman and Diu, New Delhi, with effect from 26/9/1982. From 1/3/1983 he was temporarily appointed as a Despatch Rider. He was regularised in this post with effect from 16/11/1987. (2) ON 23rd May, 1987 the Goa, Daman and Diu Reorganisation Act, 1987 came into force. Thereafter, the Government of India, inexercise of powers conferred under Ss. 60 and 62 of the said Act issued allotment for service in the State of Goa Order, 1990. (3) BY virtue of the said Act of 1987, the respondent who was given employment by the Special Commissioner, Government of Goa, Daman and Diu, became an employee of the State of Goa. (4) ON 18/11/1991 the Government of Goa issued an order, inter alia, transferring and posting the respondent as Despatch Rider in the Secretariat, Panaji, Goa. Instead of reporting for duty at Goa, the respondent filed an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, challenging the order of transfer. By the impugned order, the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, has held that it had jurisdiction over the subjectmatter of the application. It quashed the order of transfer. Hence, the present appeal has been filed by the appellants. (5) UNDER S. 80 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Reorganisation Act, 1987, every person employed in connection with the affairs of the Union Territory or the State of Goa and serving immediately before the appointed day in the District of Goa of the existing Union Territory shall and on/and from that date continue to serve in connection with the affairs of the State of Goa. Although, the respondent was employed at Delhi, he was employed in the office of the Special Commissioner. Government of Goa, Daman and Diu, his salary was paid by the Government of Goa, and he served in connection with the affairs of the State of Goa. Thus, the respondent being an employee of the State of Goa, the Central Administrative Tribunal had no jurisdiction over the said transfer orders issued in connection with the employment of the respondent. We, therefore, fail to see how the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, could have exercised any jurisdiction in respect of the transfer order issued to the respondents. Thus, the respondent being an employee of the State of Goa, the Central Administrative Tribunal had no jurisdiction over the said transfer orders issued in connection with the employment of the respondent. We, therefore, fail to see how the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, could have exercised any jurisdiction in respect of the transfer order issued to the respondents. (6) THE appeal is, therefore, allowed and the impugned judgment and order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi is set aside. The original application filed by the respondent before the Central Administrative Tribunal is dismissed.