UNION OF INDIA Vs. JITENDRA SHANTILAL BHATT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Obtain ad interim relief. Thereafter go on filing sick note and on one or another ground (or pretext) avoid hearing of the application for interim relief. Can any one extend the life of ad interim relief in this fashion What should weigh with the court while staying the operation and implementation of the order of transfer of an employee? These are some of the questions which will be answered vary soon.

(2.) The petitioners Union of India and other office bearers are the original defendants. The respondents-original plaintiffs are serving as Sepoys in Group D posts in Customs Department at Bhavnagar. They filed a suit being Civil Suit No. 712 of 1984 in the Court of Civil Judge (SD) Bhavnagar and prayed that the order of their transfer dated 13/07/1984 from Bhavnagar Jetty Port to Customs Division Bhavnagar be quashed and set aside. The suit has been filed on 14/08/1984 and on the same day the respondents obtained an order directing the petitioners-defendants to maintain status quo up to 22/08/1984 Thereafter order directing to maintain status quo has been extended front time to time mainly on the ground that the learned advocate appearing for the plaintiffs was sick and therefore unable to attend the court. Feeling exasperated by such tactics played by the plaintiffs and on account of the indifferent attitude exhibited by the trial court the petitioners preferred the present revision application before this Court Court on 5/12/1984 A direction was given to the trial court on 6/12/1984 to hear and decide the application Exh. 5 latest before 11/12/1984 The attention of the trial court was drawn to the provisions of Order 39 Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure and to a decision of this Court in the case of Taragauri Kalyanji v. District Panchayat Jamnagar reported in 1984 G.L.H. 589. Probably because the counsel for the plaintiffs did not cooperate the trial court could not decide the application Exh. 5 and further adjourned the hearing. In these circumstances order passed earlier on 6/12/1984 has been cancelled and the matter is entertained and admitted. Both the respondents-plaintiffs have been served and they have been heard.

(3.) At least there are two reported decisions of this Court on the question of entertaining matters pertaining to transfer and the interim relief to be passed in such cases. They are: