SURVEY GENERAL OF INDIA, THE DIRECTOR, KARNATAKA GEO SPATIAL DATA CENTRE AND THE UNION OF INDIA REP BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY Vs. T.M. POONJA NOW WORKING AT THE OFFICE OF ADDL. S.G., MAHARASHTRA & GOA SPATIAL DATA CENTRE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order dated 21.2.2013, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, in Review Application No. 37/2012, in so far as it relates to observations in paragraph -3 of the order is concerned, is called in question in this writ petition. The records reveal that the respondent herein, who was working at Bangalore in the petitioner -Organization was transferred by virtue of the transfer order dated 1.4.2011. The movement order is issued to the respondent on 5.4.2011. The transfer order as well as movement order were questioned by the respondent in Application No. 144/2011 before the Central Administrative Tribunal. Interim order came to be granted in favour of the respondent herein on 11.4.2011 directing the parties to maintain status -quo. The interim order so granted was continued from time to time till the application came to be allowed on 14.11.2011. Ultimately, Central Administrative Tribunal quashed the transfer order issued by the petitioners and consequently, the respondent continued at Bangalore.

(2.) SRI Pramod, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners brings to the notice of the Court that subsequently the respondent is transferred in accordance with law.

(3.) SRI Pramod, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the Tribunal -while expunging the remarks made by it in its earlier order dated 14.11.2011 in. O.A. Nos. 143 -147/2011, made certain other observations. According to him, the observations quoted supra, were totally unnecessary for disposal of Review Application No. 37/2012 and the same would lead financial burden to the Central Government. We do not find any ground to interfere with the observations made by the Tribunal quoted supra. The Tribunal has merely explained as to why the salary is to be paid in favour of the respondent during the period of subsistence of status -quo order. In the matter on hand, admittedly, the order of status -quo came to be passed by the Tribunal on 11.4.2011 which was continued from time to time till the disposal of the application before the Tribunal. In that context, it was contended by the petitioners that they are not obliged to take back the respondent for duty during the subsistence of status -quo order, inasmuch as the movement order was already issued. To clear the position, the Tribunal has, in the impugned order observed that the word 'status -quo' is to be understood in a positive manner indicating that the Tribunal is of the view that the persons themselves will hold the post which they were holding prior to order passed against them and consequently, Tribunal has directed the petitioners to pay the salary to the respondent since he is not at fault. As the impugned observations simply clarify the earlier order of the Tribunal in the matter, we do not propose to interfere with such observations.