Judgment:
ORDER
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. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing for the respondents.
4. 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.
5. On the other hand, in response to the argument advanced by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Solicitor General submitted that the order of transfer has already been implemented as per the order dated 15.4.2009 passed by the Tribunal and Smt. Vandana Kumar, who has been transferred in the place of petitioner at Bangalore, has already reported for duty on 17.4.2009 and has produced the copy of communication on that behalf.
6. We have given careful consideration to the contentions of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and scrutinized the material on record.
7. It is well settled that this Court would be slow to interfere with the interim order passed by the Tribunal and the order of Tribunal impugned in this writ petition is an interim order, wherein the application for vacating the order of status-quo has been allowed. The order under challenge before the Tribunal is one of transfer. The copy of the communication produced by the learned Assistant Solicitor General would show that the order of transfer has already been implemented and wherefore the question of granting stay of the order of transfer by the Tribunal would not arise at this stage. However, the interest of the petitioner can be safeguarded by directing the Tribunal to dispose of the main application itself expeditiously.
Accordingly, we hold that apart from giving direction to the Tribunal to dispose of the main application itself expeditiously, the petitioner is not entitled for any other relief and pass the following:
Order
The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore, to dispose off OA No. 77/2009 within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of this order or production of the certified copy of this order, whichever is earlier.