Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 780 (CAL)

Union of India v. Md. Imran Raja

2014-08-18

ISHAN CHANDRA DAS, JAYANTA KUMAR BISWAS

body2014
Judgment Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J. The petitioners in this WPCT under Article 226 of the Constitution of India dated July 28, 2014 are questioning an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal Calcutta Bench dated February 3, 2014 disposing of the respondent’s OA No.2358 of 2010. The respondent filed the OA questioning a transfer order dated February 5, 2009. The Tribunal finding that the transfer actually amounted to a reversion ultimately passed the following order:- “The applicant, as we find, has also objected several times to such reversion without his consent, which was never disposed of. The Ld. Counsel does not object to grant of protection of pay scale. In such view of the matter the O.A. is disposed of with consent of the parties with a direction to grant appropriate protection of pay and pay scale w.e.f. the date of transfer of the applicant to Asansol. Appropriate orders be passed within three months with arrears. No costs.” Advocate for the petitioners has submitted that though no case has been specifically stated in the WPCT that the petitioners did not give any consent to the passing of the impugned order or any other order, he has received specific instructions to submit that, in fact, the petitioners did not give any consent to the passing of the impugned order or any other order. To this advocate for the respondent has submitted that the petitioners gave consent to the passing of the order dated February 3, 2014. Faced with the question of maintainability of the WPCT, advocate for the petitioners has submitted that if this court is not minded to entertain the WPCT on the grounds that the petitioners did not approach the Tribunal by filing appropriate application stating their case that they actually did not give any consent to the passing of the order or any other order, in that case the petitioners may be granted liberty to approach the Tribunal making appropriate application. To this, advocate for the respondent has submitted that he cannot say that the petitioners should not be granted liberty to file application, if they wish, before the Tribunal. It is evident from the order of the Tribunal that recording consent of the petitioners and the respondent the Tribunal passed the order that has made the petitioners aggrieved. To this, advocate for the respondent has submitted that he cannot say that the petitioners should not be granted liberty to file application, if they wish, before the Tribunal. It is evident from the order of the Tribunal that recording consent of the petitioners and the respondent the Tribunal passed the order that has made the petitioners aggrieved. Since the petitioners have given instructions to their advocate to submit that, in fact, they did not give any consent to the passing of the order or any other order, in our opinion, they should have approached the Tribunal making appropriate application. The question whether the petitioners gave consent to the passing of the order or any other order was to be examined first by the Tribunal and this court that is supposed to proceed on the basis that things recorded by the Tribunal in its order are correct is not to entertain and examine the question until the Tribunal examines it. For these reasons, we dismiss the WPCT. Nothing herein shall prevent the petitioners from approaching the Tribunal by filing appropriate application stating that the Tribunal passed the order wrongly recording their consent to it. No costs.