Judgment Bhawani Singh, CJ.—This petition challenges interim order of Central Administrative Tribunal (for short ‘CAT’) dated 21.12.2005 passed in Original Application No. 553 of 2005. 2. Through this original application, petitioner has challenged her transfer order from Ahmedabad to Bhopal mainly on two grounds, that it is mala fide, passed with a view to accommodate Respondent 3 and, that it is going to cause serious inconvenience to her since she is suffering from acute rheumatoid arthritis, likely to be operated soon. Both these questions were advanced before the CAT. They have been dealt with and decided against the petitioner and in favour of the respondents holding that order of transfer does not suffer from mala fides nor arbitrary. Further, hardship may not be a ground for interfering with the transfer order. Both these questions are raised through this petition. Shri M.S. Rao forcefully contends that CAT has technically decided the Original Application on merits having gone into questions raised deeply, thereafter recording the finding, which may affect the decision on merits. We fail to appreciate this submission. Both these submissions were advanced before us also. When submissions are advanced before a Court, they have to be answered. Order so passed pertains to the application under consideration and not to merits, which are to be examined by the Court/CAT, as the case may be. Having considered the matter, we are of the opinion that CAT has considered the matter quite seriously and justifiably. When question pertains to mala fides, it cannot be rested on the ground that it was passed on Friday and petitioner was relieved in a particular fashion. These facts are not enough for demonstrating that order of transfer is mala fide. Further, whether the transfer is harsh, is for the employer to consider. These are administrative matters, unless mala fide, illegal, beyond jurisdiction, Court may not interfere with it. It is within jurisdiction of the employer to decide whom to transfer and where to transfer in the interest of administration. We do not go into the merits of the case, particularly the other commercial and administrative reasons assigned by the respondents, since they may be considered by the CAT while disposing of the matter. In Ajay Shashikant Patel vs. Sports Authority of India & Ors., SCA No. 16498 of 2005, we had occasion to consider the Apex Court decision in Union of India & Ors. In Ajay Shashikant Patel vs. Sports Authority of India & Ors., SCA No. 16498 of 2005, we had occasion to consider the Apex Court decision in Union of India & Ors. vs. Janardhan Debanath & Anr., 2004 (4) SCC 245 . In Paragraph 14 the Apex Court said:— “The allegations made against the respondents are of serious nature, and the conduct attributed is certainly unbecoming. Whether there was any mis-behaviour is a question which can be gone into in a departmental proceeding. For the purposes of effecting a transfer, the question of holding an inquiry to find out whether there was mis-behaviour or conduct unbecoming of an employee is unnecessary and what is needed is the prima facie satisfaction of the authority concerned on the contemporary reports about the occurrence complained of and if the requirement, as submitted by learned Counsel for the respondents, of holding an elaborate inquiry is to be insisted upon, the very purpose of transferring an employee in public interest or exigencies of administration to enforce decorum and ensure probity would get frustrated.” In State of M.P. & Anr. vs. S.S. Kourav, AIR 1995 SC 1056 , the Apex Court observed as follows:— “The Courts or Tribunals are not appellate forums to decide on transfer of officers on administrative grounds. The wheels of administration should be allowed to run smoothly and the Courts or Tribunals are not expected to interdict the working of the administrative system by transferring the officers to proper places. It is for the administration to take appropriate decision and such decisions shall stand unless they are vitiated either by mala fides or by extraneous consideration without any factual background foundation.” Therefore, we find no case for interference with the interim order and the petition is dismissed, otherwise, order dated 21.12.2005 safeguards the interest of the petitioner to the extent possible. * * * * * 2006 (2) GCD 1149 (Guj) (DB) Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.J. Shethna & Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.C. Patel Medical Officer & Anr. Versus Pravinchandra Girdharlal Pandya & Ors. Letters Patent Appeal No. 1494 of 20041—Decided on 08/02/20062 Point in Issue : Regularisation — Denial of — Ground of over-age — Sustainability. * * * * * 2006 (2) GCD 1149 (Guj) (DB) Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.J. Shethna & Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.C. Patel Medical Officer & Anr. Versus Pravinchandra Girdharlal Pandya & Ors. Letters Patent Appeal No. 1494 of 20041—Decided on 08/02/20062 Point in Issue : Regularisation — Denial of — Ground of over-age — Sustainability. Head Note : Service and Employment — Regularisation — Denial of — Ground of — Over-age — Sustainability — Instead of regularising the services of the original petitioner as peon who was working with appellants for more than 23 years on fixed salary, they improperly decided to fill up newly created post of peon by inviting applications ignoring the claim of the original petitioner — If the original petitioner was working as part timer as tried to be claimed by authorities for 23 years from 1963 to 1986 then there was no need for the then medical officer to recommend the name of the original petitioner to be appointed as peon on regular basis — The fact itself shows that he was appointed on a fixed salary and continued to work till his retirement in 2003 on regular basis but not as part timer — That is more so when in the facts learned Single Judge of the Court to exercise his extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction in favour of original petitioner and directed appellants to regularise the petitioner services — These facts do not leave any scope for interference in letters patent jurisdiction of the Court. Ëuðt y™u htus„th - r™Þr{‚ fhðt ƒtƒ‚ - ‚u™tu ELfth - ‚u™wk fthý - ô{h ðe‚e „Þu÷e - ‚u xfðt ƒtƒ‚ - {q¤ yhsŒth™e …xtðt¤t ‚hefu Ëuðtytu r™Þr{‚ fhðt™u ƒŒ÷u suytu yhsŒthtu ËtÚtu ™e …„th …h 23 ð»ttuo fh‚tk ðÄthu ft{ fh‚tk n‚tk ‚u{ýu yÞtuøÞ he‚u …xtðt¤t™e ™ðe søÞt W¼e fhu÷ ‚u yhSytu {tkøÞt îtht ¼hðt™wk ™e fhu÷ y™u {q¤ yhsŒth™tk Œtðt™e yð„ý™tk fhðt{tk ytðu÷e òu {q¤ yhsŒth ¾kz Ë{Þ ‚hefu 23 ð»ttuo fh‚tk ðÄthu Ë{ÞÚte 1963Úte 1966 ËwÄe ft{ fh‚tk n‚tk íÞthu ‚u 𾂙tk ‚ƒeƒe yrÄfthe {txu {q¤ yhsŒth™t ™t{™e ¼÷t{ý r™Þr{‚ ytÄth …h …xtðt¤t ‚hefu r™{ðt sYhe ™ n‚e - nfef‚ ¾qŒ ƒ‚tð‚e n‚e fu ‚u{™e r™{ýqkf r™rù‚ …„th …h fhðt{tk ytðu÷e y™u ‚uytu 2003{tk r™ð]¥t ÚtÞtk íÞtk ËwÄe ‚u{ýu ft{ [t÷w ht¾u÷wk y™u ‚u ¾kz Ë{Þ ‚hefu ™®n …hk‚w r™Þr{‚ ytÄth …h ft{ fhu÷wk - yt ðÄthu …z‚wk yu he‚u ßÞthu nfef‚{tk yŒt÷‚™tk rðît™ yuf LÞtÞ{qŠ‚yu {q¤ yhsŒth™e ‚hVuý{tk yËtÄthý nfq{‚™tu W…Þtu„ fhe yhsŒthtu™u {q¤ yhsŒth™e Ëuðtytu r™Þr{‚ fhðt ytŒuþ yt…u÷tu - yt nfef‚tu yŒt÷‚™e ÷uxËo …uxLx nfq{‚{tk Œ¾÷„ehe fhðt {txu ftuE yðftþ Atuz‚e ™Úte. Held : It is no doubt true that the age of the original petitioner was 43 in 1986 and admittedly he was over-age, therefore, in normal circumstances perhaps he could not have been appointed if there was a regular process of selection adopted by the authority by publishing the advertisement, but in the instant case a different mode altogether was adopted by the authority by calling the names from the Social Welfare Department and the District Employment Officer, Amreli, then straightway appointing Shri Dabasara who worked there only for a period of six months and thereafter he was transferred. Surprisingly, thereafter since 1988 nobody was appointed on regular basis on the post of peon and all through-out the authorities have taken the work of peon from the petitioner on fixed pay. Thus, it clearly appears that the authorities have simply exploited the poor class-IV servant in this way who had put on in all 10 valuable years of his life in the service of the authorities as peon, but on a fixed salary. Thus, it clearly appears that the authorities have simply exploited the poor class-IV servant in this way who had put on in all 10 valuable years of his life in the service of the authorities as peon, but on a fixed salary. [Para 5] Under the circumstances, on the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, if the learned Single Judge of this Court has thought it fit to exercise his extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction in favour of the original petitioner and granted relief as prayed for by the original petitioner and directed the respondents to regularize the petitioner’s service to consider him as regularly appointed employee on the post of peon then certainly the Court would not like to interfere with such order in its letters patent jurisdiction. [Para 7] Law Laid Down : Denying regularisation of service of original petitioner clearly shows that authorities have simply exploited the poor Class-IV servant who had put on in all 40 valuable years of his life in service of authorities as peon. Appearance : Mr. H.S. Munshaw, for the Appellant(s) No. 1-2. Mr. Hemang R. Rawal, for the Respondent No. 1. Ms. P.B. Sheth, Assistant Government Pleader for the Respondent(s) No. 2-3. Conclusion: When on particular facts and circumstances the learned Single Judge has thought it fit to exercise his extraordinary writ jurisdiction in favour of original petitioner and granted relief of regularisation of his appointment, Court is not inclined to interfere with such order in letters patent jurisdiction. Decided in Favour of : Respondents Appeal Dismissed Judgment B.J. Shethna, J.—Shri Pravinchandra Girdharlal Pandya present Respondent No. 1 original petitioner, had filed writ petition i.e. Special Civil Application No. 3734 of 1988 before this Court, praying that the respondents (i) State of Gujarat, (ii) Director of Indian Medicines and Homoeopathic System, (iii) Medical Officer (Cl. II), Government Rural Health Center, Bhurakhiya, Tal. Lathi, District Amreli, and (iv) the District Panchayat, Amreli, be directed to regularize the petitioner’s service as peon and grant him all consequential benefit of service, including the difference of salary. II), Government Rural Health Center, Bhurakhiya, Tal. Lathi, District Amreli, and (iv) the District Panchayat, Amreli, be directed to regularize the petitioner’s service as peon and grant him all consequential benefit of service, including the difference of salary. This petition of 1988 was finally allowed on 02.04.2004 by the learned Single Judge of this Court with a direction to the respondents to consider the original petitioner as regularly appointed employee for all purpose and to give him all admissible service benefits available to a regularly appointed employee, including that of arrears of salary, subject to adjustment of the amount which was already paid to him as a daily wager. The original respondents authorities were directed to comply with the said order within three months from the date of receipt of the order. The period of three months has already over since long but so far the order passed by the learned Single Judge is not complied with on the ground of pendency of this appeal, without any interim orders obtained from this Court. 2. Learned Counsel Shri Munshaw for the appellants Medical Officer (Primary Health Centre) and District Development Officer, Amreli submitted that the learned Single Judge committed grave error in allowing the writ petition and issuing the aforesaid direction. He submitted that the Respondent No. 1-original petitioner was never appointed as peon on regular basis. He was working as part-timer and by issuing such directions back door entry is given to the Respondent No. 1 original petitioner, as he was never eligible to be appointed as peon in 1986 because he was over-age as his age was 43 in 1986 and that his name was neither forwarded by the Social Welfare Officer nor by the District Employment Officer, Amreli, to the Director of Indian Medicine and Homoeopathic system-original Respondent No. 2 and present Respondent No. 3 in this appeal. 3. Before appreciating the aforesaid submissions made by Shri Munshaw for the appellants few important facts are required to be stated which are as under: “The original petitioner-Respondent No. 1 herein was working as peon in Ayurvedic Dispensary at village Bhurakhiya, Taluka Lathi, District Amreli since 1963, as part-time peon on a fixed salary of Rs. 10/- with effect from 01.03.1963. Thereafter, he was paid Rs. 15/- per month with effect from 01.12.1968 and from 01.04.1972 he was paid the salary of Rs. 30/- per month. 10/- with effect from 01.03.1963. Thereafter, he was paid Rs. 15/- per month with effect from 01.12.1968 and from 01.04.1972 he was paid the salary of Rs. 30/- per month. On 03.07.1979 his salary was fixed at Rs. 125.50 paise per month. In 1986 the State of Gujarat passed resolution dated 17.03.1986 upgrading the dispensary, in which the original petitioner was working, run by the District Panchayat, Amreli, and by a subsequent Resolution dated 16.08.1986 the State Government sanctioned one post of Medical Officer (Cl. II), one post of peon and one post of Compounder. Thus, since 1986, it was under the control and financed by the State Government. Instead of regularizing the services of the original petitioner as peon, who was working with them for more than 23 years on a fixed salary, they decided to fill-up newly created post of peon by inviting the names from the District Employment Exchange and District Social Welfare Officer, Amreli and appointed one Shri Dabasara on the said post by ignoring the claim of the original petitioner. The petitioner was not appointed on regular basis on the post of peon on the ground that he was over-age and that his name was not forwarded to the Director of Indian Medicines and Homoeopathic System Respondent No. 2 in 1986. Within six months of his appointment Shri Dabasara was transferred. It may be noted that during the pendency of the petition when Shri Dabasara was working as peon and after his transfer they continued to take work from the original petitioner as peon without appointing anyone else on the said post on regular basis till the retirement of Respondent No. 1 original petitioner i.e. in 2003. 4. It is an admitted fact that considering his long standing service as peon the then Medical Officer recommended his case on several occasion to regularly appoint the original petitioner on the post of peon and in spite of it, without considering his name Shri Dabasara was appointed by calling the name from the Social Officer and District Employment Officer, Amreli. 5. In view of the above facts now we will consider the submissions made by Shri Munshaw for the appellants. 5. In view of the above facts now we will consider the submissions made by Shri Munshaw for the appellants. It is no doubt true that the age of the original petitioner was 43 in 1986 and admittedly he was over-age, therefore, in normal circumstances perhaps he could not have been appointed if there was a regular process of selection adopted by the authority by publishing the advertisement, but in the instant case a different mode altogether was adopted by the authority by calling the names from the Social Welfare Department and the District Employment Officer, Amreli, then straightway appointing Shri Dabasara who worked there only for a period of six months and thereafter he was transferred. Surprisingly, thereafter since 1988 nobody was appointed on regular basis on the post of peon and all through-out the authorities have taken the work of peon from the petitioner on fixed pay. Thus, it clearly appears that the authorities have simply exploited the poor class-IV servant in this way who had put on in all 10 valuable years of his life in the service of the authorities as peon, but on a fixed salary. It clearly appears that it was a camouflage in appointing Shri Dabasara on regular basis on the post of peon, that too, for a short period of six months and thereafter not appointing anyone else in place of Shri Dabasara and continuing petitioner as peon. 6. However, at this stage, a submission was made by Shri Munshaw that they were taking the work from the respondent petitioner as part-timer. If they could take the work from the original petitioner right from 1963 to 1986 for a period of 23 years as part-timer and if there was as such no work then we failed to appreciate that why one post of peon was sanctioned by the State Government in the new set up in the year 1988. Surprisingly, even after creating one post of peon the authority took the work from the original petitioner as part-timer which is not believable at all. There cannot be any better case of exploitation than this one. Surprisingly, even after creating one post of peon the authority took the work from the original petitioner as part-timer which is not believable at all. There cannot be any better case of exploitation than this one. If the original petitioner was working as part-timer, as tried to be claimed by the authorities for 23 years right from 1963 to 1986, then there was no need for the then Medical Officer to recommend the name of the original petitioner to be appointed as peon on the regular basis. This fact itself shows that he was appointed on a fixed salary and continued to work till his retirement in 2003 on regular basis, but not as part-timer. 7. Under the circumstances, on the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, if the learned Single Judge of this Court has thought it fit to exercise his extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction in favour of the original petitioner and granted relief as prayed for by the original petitioner and directed the respondents to regularize the petitioner’s service to consider him as regularly appointed employee on the post of peon then certainly we would not like to interfere with such order in our letters patent jurisdiction. 8. Before parting, we must say that the director of Indian Medicines and Homoeopathic System-Original Respondent No. 2 was the appointing authority and the original Respondent No. 1 State of Gujarat is the controlling and financing authority but they have not thought it fit to challenge the order passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition of the original petitioner, but the present appellants who are the Medical Officer and the District Development Officer, Amreli, have thought it fit to challenge the same for the reasons best known to them. Not only that all the authorities, including the present appellants have blatantly flouted the judgment and order dated 02.04.2004 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court allowing the Special Civil Application No. 3734 of 1988, filed by the original petitioner by not complying with the direction issued by the learned Single Judge to comply with the order within three months from the date of receipt of the order, without obtaining any interim order from this Court. 9. 9. At this stage, it was submitted by Shri Munshaw for the appellants that alongwith the present civil application for stay was filed which was ordered to be heard with this appeal, therefore, there is no compliance of the order at the hands of the State Government. When the order was to be complied with by the State Government and the Director then we failed to understand that how the present appellants could have filed such appeal more particularly when the authorities concerned were not interested in challenging the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge. At this stage it was submitted by Shri Raval for the Respondent No. 1 original petitioner that initially this appeal was simply admitted, at that time no civil application for stay was filed. Later on it was filed only because he had filed contempt petition. 10. There cannot be a better case of bureaucratic approach of the authorities. They are fighting the litigation at the cost of public money and harassing the poor class-IV person, who had swatted for 40 years of his life with them. Though he filed petition 1988 and when he succeeded after 16 years i.e. in April, 2004, even after a period of nearly 2 years he has not seen the fruits of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in his favour which is most unfortunate. 11. In view of the above discussion this appeal is dismissed. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the appellants must be saddled with a special cost so that in future such a false and frivolous litigation is avoided. We were inclined to saddle the appellants with the cost which is to be paid by them from their personal pocket, but it was submitted by Shri Munshaw for the appellant that they were required to file appeal at the behest of the State Government. Therefore, the appellants may not be held saddled with personal cost. 12. In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed with a special cost of Rs. 10,000/-which may be paid to the Respondent No.1 original petitioner on or before 30.04.2006 with a direction to the present appellants as well as the present Respondents No. 2 and 3 comply with the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge forthwith. 13. 12. In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed with a special cost of Rs. 10,000/-which may be paid to the Respondent No.1 original petitioner on or before 30.04.2006 with a direction to the present appellants as well as the present Respondents No. 2 and 3 comply with the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge forthwith. 13. Civil Application No. 498 of 2006 is disposed of as the main appeal is dismissed. * * * * *