BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED BSNL Vs. NIKHIL NANDIMAJUMDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have assailed the legality and validity of the order dated 13.09.04 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.2, West Tripura, Agartala in Misc. Appeal No. 13/04 setting aside the order dated 09.08.04 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Court No.2, West Tripura, Agartala in Misc. Case No. 83/ 04 arising out of T.S. No. 88/04. By the impugned order dated 13.09.04 the Additional District Judge has granted temporary mandatory injunction in respect of the order dated 22.07.04 transferring the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 along five others from Tripura to Mizoram, directing the petitioners not to give effect to the said transfer order. The Trial Court had refused to grant the temporary injunction as was prayed for by the said respondents.

(2.) Adverting to the facts of the case, the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 herein along with five others belonging to Telecom Engineering Service (T.E.S. Group-B) under the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (BSNL) working in different capacities in the State of Tripura were transferred to Mizoram by an order dated 22.07.04. Being aggrieved, they instituted a Title Suit No. 88/04 in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Division), West Tripura, Agartala praying for a decree for declaration that the said order of transfer was illegal and for perpetual injunction restraining the petitioners from giving effect to the order of transfer and also for a decree of mandatory injunction directing the petitioners to withdarw the said order. Alongwith the plaint, they also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC praying for temporary injunction retraining the petitioners from giving effect to the impugned order of transfer and also for a temporary mandatory injunction against the order of release.

(3.) The respondents No. 4 to 14 in this proceeding were made proforma defendants in the suit as well as in the application for injunction. It was the case of the plaintiffs/applicants that the said respondents No.4 to 14 belonged to a particular Employees' Organisation whereas the plaintiffs belonged to another Association. According to the plaintiffs, 11 Officers namely the respondents No.4 to 14 were promoted to T.E.S. Group- B on 25.07.02 without any vacancy which resulted in excess Officers in Tripura SSA as a consequence of which 8 Officers, i.e., the plaintiffs had to be transferred to maintain the equilibrium and that, but for the aforesaid illegal accommodation of the respondents No. 4 to 14, the plaintiffs would not have been transferred. According to the plaintiffs, the said respondents were promoted on 25.07.02 showing favour to them having regard to the fact that they belonged to other Association unlike the plaintiffs who belonged to another Association.