J. SIRISH CHOUDHARY S/O SRI VENKATA RAYALU Vs. THE UNION OF INDIA (UOI) BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed by the applicant in O.A. No. 77/2009 being aggrieved by the order dated 15.4.2009, wherein the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') has allowed MA No.89/2009 and vacated the order for maintenance of status quo dated 20.2.2009 in respect of the present posting of the applicant and has directed the respondents to go ahead with the postings.

(2.) THE petitioner herein filed OA No. 77/2009 on the file of the Tribunal challenging the order of transfer passed by the respondent dated 22.7.2008, wherein the applicant/petitioner has been transferred from the Joint Controller of Defence Accounts, Office of the Controller of Defence Accounts at Bangalore to the Accounts Office, Ordnance Factory, Chanda. The Tribunal passed an interim order dated 20.2.2009 to maintain status -quo till the next date of hearing and the said order of status -quo was extended from time to time on different dates when the case appealed before the Tribunal. An application in MA No. 89/2009 was tiled by the respondents for vacating the order for maintenance of status -quo on the ground that the transfer order has already been implemented and the said application has been allowed by the Tribunal by order dated 15.4.2009. Being aggrieved by the said order, the original applicant before the Tribunal has preferred this writ petition contending that the Tribunal was not justified in vacating the interim order directing the respondents to maintain status -quo regarding transfer of the applicant and the Tribunal ought to have continued the interim order and rejected MA No. 89/2009.

(3.) THE learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the order of transfer of the petitioner has been challenged m OA No.77/2009 and the order of status -quo had been passed on 20.2.2009 and the said order could not have been vacated on the basis of the application filed by the respondents and therefore the impugned order is liable to be quashed.