T VELMURUGAIAN Vs. REGISTRAR HIGH COURT MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (17.3.1994) The writ petition is directed against an order of transfer passed on 17.1.1994 under R. 40(a) of the Tamil Nadu Judicial Ministerial service Rules transferring the petitioner Deputy Registrar, Court of Small Causes, Madras, who is posted as Head-clerk, Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Tiruchirapalli in the existing vacancy on administrative grounds. The petitioner came up before this court challenging this order mainly complaining that the order of transfer has resulted in reduction in the rank of the petitioner. It is alleged in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that in the Tamil Nadu Judicial Ministerial Service Rules, the Deputy Registrar of the Court of Small Causes is classified as belonging to category-2 of clause-1 and class IV deals with the corresponding service in the moffusil courts. The post of the Head-Clerk, Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court is classified as belonging to category-3. As such the petitioner's complaint is that the rank of the petitioner was reduced from category 2 to 3 by the order of transfer. The petitioner alleges that the result of the order of transfer is that the petitioner is demoted from category-2. to category-3. As such, though it is an order of transfer, it amounts to reduction in rank. Therefore, the impugned order is passed arbitrarily. It is also pointed out that the petitioner is at present the senior most in his category awaiting to be promoted to the next category as Sheristadar, and if the order of transfer is implemented the petitioner would be deprived of his promotional opportunities. It is also alleged that the transfer has been made on the basis of an anonymous complaint, which is a punitive transfer and hence it is unsustainable, and this petitioner has pointed out that the transfer should not be the end-result of the complaint because the concerned individual would have no opportunity to defend himself. It is also alleged in the affidavit that the trend of forwarding anonymous complaints has been on the increase even by persons who are aggrieved by the action of an honest government servant, and the order is vitiated by legal mala fides as it has been deliberately worded in a harmless manner. It is also pointed out that the post of Deputy Registrar now held by the petitioner has the benefit of special pay and S.C. allowance which are consequently lost by the transfer.

(2.) THE Writ Petition was admitted by this court on 25.1.1994, and a notice was ordered to the Respondents, returnable by 31.1.1994. When the case was listed on 4.2.1994 the learned Government Advocate wanted time to file counter till 14.2.1994 and this court passed an interim stay till then. However, when the matter came up for hearing on the next occasion on 11.2.1994, without complying with the order or stay counter-affidavit has been filed by the Registrar of this Court and certain averments are made in part 3 of the counter, which in my view was not palatable. So, it was observed by this court that this court is not inclined to take up the petition to vacate the stay filed by the Registrar in W.M.P. Nos. 3494 to 3496 of 1994 till the interim order is implemented by the Registrar of this court. THE Registrar was directed to put back the writ petitioner to his original place in pursuance of the earlier order of this court on 4.2.1994. Unfortunately the Registrar of the High Court, who is the respondent, filed a writ appeal in W.A. No. 290 of 1994 against this order and the Writ Appeal came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Mishra, J., and S.M. Ali Mohamed, J., and a caveat seems to have been filed by the Writ Petitioner and the counsel for the petitioner has taken notice before the Division Bench. It seems the Division Bench heard learned counsel for the petitioner on 21.2.1994 and after issuing notice of the motion ordered that the writ petition will be heard along with the Writ Appeal only against the interim order passed by this court in W.M.P. Nos. 3494 to 3496 of 1994 in W.M.P. No. 1233 of 1994. It seems the Writ Appeal No. 290 of 1994 and W.P. No. 1233 of 1994 have been heard by the Division Bench on 2.3.1994.

(3.) AS pointed out by Mr. Sivasubramaniam, learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has joined duty at Tiruchi in accordance with the undertaking given before the Division Bench. Learned Government Advocate, Mr. P. Chandrasekaran, also states that he has joined duty on 7.3.1994. AS such nothing survives in the writ petition as the petitioner's writ petition is directed against the order of transfer and as the petitioner joined the station to which he has been transferred. However, Mr. Sivasubramaniam, while making a submission that nothing survives in the order of transfer, mentioned that while the order passed on the Administrative side has been stayed by a single judge of this Court on the judicial side, the Administrative side especially the head of the Administrative side, the Registrar, should not have taken the matter on appeal, against an interlocutory order. Learned counsel pointed out that if the order passed by a learned single judge of this Court, sitting on the judicial side, is not obeyed by the Administrative Head of the High Court itself, how this Court can expect orders of this Court to be obeyed by the Administrative Authorities, and the Executive Learned counsel rightly pointed out that the Administrative head of the High Court should set an example by obeying and implementing the orders of this Court, but, instead, he thought it fit to take it on appeal thinking it as a prestigious issue. Looking at the submissions made by Mr. Sivasubramanian, learned counsel for the petitioner it looks very unfortunate that such an episode has happened within the precincts of this court. When a judicial order is issued by this Court it has to be obeyed first. That has not been done. Unfortunately, the action of the Administrative head of this Court has been affixed with the seal approval by a Division Bench of this Court. AS I believe in keeping up proprieties and conventions of this Court, I desist from saying any further. The writ petition shall stand dismissed. No costs. This petition having been posted this day for being spoken to in the presence of Mr. K.P. Sivasubramanian advocate for the petitioner and of Mr. P. Chandrasekaran, Additional Government Pleader on behalf of the Respondents, the Court made the following order; ORDER (24.3.1994) 1. The above writ petition has been listed today for ?being spoken to? at the instance of the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, on seeing the newspaper report as to the final orders of this court in the said writ petition. 2. By pointing out certain portions in paragraph 4 of my order dated 17-3-1994, which runs as follows: "Learned counsel pointed out that if the order passed by a learned single Judge of this court sitting on judicial side, is not obeyed by the Administrative head of the High Court itself, how this Court can expect Orders of this Court to be obeyed by the Administrative Authorities and the executives. Learned counsel rightly pointed out that the Administrative Head of the High Court should set an example by obeying and implementing the orders of this Court, but, instead, he thought it fit to take it in appeal thinking it as a prestigious issue. Looking at the submissions made by Mr. Sivasubramanian, learned counsel of the petitioner, it looks very unfortunate that such an episode has happened within the precincts of this Court, When a judicial order is issued by this Court, it has to be obeyed first. That has not been done?, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that certain clarification needs to be made. I do not think so. While making the above observations, what this Court meant was, every order of the court, whether it is an interim order or final order, has to be obeyed punctually without taking up any technical objection to get over the implementation of the orders of this Court. In this case, what is painful to notice is, the writ petition came up for admission on 25-1-1994 and this Court, while admitting the writ petition, challenging an order of transfer from Madras to Tiruchi on the ground of reduction in rank and punitive in nature, ordered notice in interim petition in W.M.P. No. 2012/94, to stay the order of transfer pending W.P. No. and on 4-2-1994, when the interim petition WMP No. 2012/94, came up for enquiry, the learned Government Pleader took time to file counter by 14-2-1994. In such circumstances, this Court, on satisfying with the prima facie case made out by the petitioner for an order of interim stay of the operation of the order of transfer, passed an interim order as ?interim stay till then?, and accordingly interim order of stay was granted till 14-2-1994. 3. Instead of obeying and implementing the interim order dated 4-2-1994 of this Court, the Registrar, of this High Court, sought to vacate the interim order dated 4-2-1994 by filing W.M.P. No. 3494 on 9-2-1994, making certain ?highly objectionable? averments in the affidavit filed in support of the said petition, about which this Court took serious note of, and by an order dated 11-2-1994, this Court directed the Registrar, High Court, Madras to implement the interim order of this court dated 4-2-1994, wh ich admittedly was not obeyed and implemented till 11-2-1994, by expressing concern, that until and unless the interim order of this court dated 4-2-1994 was implemented, this court was not inclined to take up the petition in W.M.P. No. 3494/94 filed by the Registrar, High Court, to vacate the interim order dated 4-2-1994. Therefore, till 11-2-1994 the interim order of this Court dated 4-2-1994 was not obeyed and implemented by the Registrar of this Court. However, the despatch seal of this court on the docket (in the drafted order in W.M.P. No. 2012/94, in W.P. No. 1233/94) shows, that the interim order dated 4-2-1994 of this Court was despatched on 4-2-1994, itself. In the meanwhile the interim order dated 4-2-1994, though stated to have been despatched on 4-2-1994, itself, came to be implemented on and after 11-2-1994, and W.A. No. 250/1994, had been filed on 15-2-1994 by the Registrar, High Court, Madras as against the interim order dated 4-2-1994 in W.M.P. No. 1233 of 1994, and the said Writ Appeal came to be disposed of subsequently. 4. In view of the above state of facts I do not think that any clarification of order dated 17-3-1994 in W.P. No. 1233/94, requires.