VINAYAK SHARMA Vs. STATE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COUNSEL for Petitioners jointly submit that Petitioners have been transferred under the order impugned issued by the State Government and against such impugned transfers appeals have been preferred before the Service Appellate Tribunal but looking to the huge pendency of the cases, the remedy provided under the Act of 1976 for filing appeals before the Service Appellate Tribunal becomes ineffective if not been heard at least for admission, in absence whereof he has been deprived of making submissions for grant of interim order in the appropriate cases and since appeals could not have been heard the department may also take punitive action against him on account of alleged non compliance of the order impugned whereby he has been transferred by the Government.

(2.) IT has also been informed to this Court that more than 1400 appeals are pending before the Service Appellate Tribunal waiting for their turn and only 60 matters are being taken up in a day for admission and looking to the over all pendency there is no likelihood of the appeals being considered for admission at least within a month or so and that certainly deprives the Petitioners of their legitimate right of hearing of the appeals preferred.

(3.) TAKING note of the order referred to supra, this Court granted opportunity to the counsel for Petitioner to make submissions on merits in regard to the order of transfer which is impugned before the Service Appellate Tribunal but none of the lawyer has shown his inclination to argue the case on merits and since individual merit of the matter has not been examined by this Court, in absence whereof, this Court is of the opinion that the Petitioners are not entitled to seek any interim relief at least from this Court unless being heard on merits but at the same time this Court finds substance in the submission made by the counsel that once the appeal has been preferred they are always under the belief that it will be heard expeditiously and and their right of appeal being preferred will be adjudicated judiciously by the Service Appellate Tribunal constituted for the purpose under the Act of 1976 and in these circumstances this Court considers it appropriate to direct the Service Appellate Tribunal to hear all appeals relating to transfer matters for admission on day to day basis since urgent hearing is required. It is made clear that this Court has not examined the individual grievance of Petitioner in regard to his transfer in accordance with law and this Court makes further clear that the learned Tribunal may not be influenced by the observations if made in the present order.