Dr Damodar Mishra Vs. State of Orissa and ors. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/667895
SubjectService
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided OnSep-20-1993
Case NumberCivil Appeal No. 5100 of 1993
Judge A.M. Ahmadi and; N. Venkatachala, JJ.
Reported in1994Supp(2)SCC51
AppellantDr Damodar Mishra
RespondentState of Orissa and ors.
DispositionAppeal Allowed
Prior historyArising out of SLP (C) No. 10897 of 1992
Excerpt:
- [a.m. ahmadi and; n. venkatachala, jj.] -- service law — transfer — survival of cause of action even when employee is transferred — appellant relieved from duty despite ad-interim stay granted by tribunal against his transfer — subsequent dismissal of appellant's application by the tribunal as infructuous, held, not proper — case therefore remitted to the tribunal for deciding it according to law -- we are afraid the impugned order of the tribunal cannot be sustained. the facts clearly reveal that against the order of transfer the appellant herein had obtained ad-interim stay from the tribunal. we, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the order of the tribunal and remit the matter to the tribunal to decide it in accordance with law.a.m. ahmadi and; n. venkatachala, jj.1. special leave granted.2. heard counsel on both sides.3. we are afraid the impugned order of the tribunal cannot be sustained. the facts clearly reveal that against the order of transfer the appellant herein had obtained ad-interim stay from the tribunal. while that stay was in operation, he came to be relieved from his post on october 4, 1991, which was clearly contrary to the letter and spirit of the tribunal's order. it is, therefore, difficult to understand how the tribunal could in such circumstances say that the petition had become infructuous. in fact the appellant can have a grievance that the respondent had committed contempt by not obeying the interim order of the tribunal. we are not suggesting that any contempt action be taken but surely the tribunal could not have dismissed the petition of the appellant merely because he was relieved with effect from october 4, 1991. we, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the order of the tribunal and remit the matter to the tribunal to decide it in accordance with law. there will be no order as to costs.
Judgment:

A.M. Ahmadi and; N. Venkatachala, JJ.

1. Special leave granted.

2. Heard counsel on both sides.

3. We are afraid the impugned order of the Tribunal cannot be sustained. The facts clearly reveal that against the order of transfer the appellant herein had obtained ad-interim stay from the Tribunal. While that stay was in operation, he came to be relieved from his post on October 4, 1991, which was clearly contrary to the letter and spirit of the Tribunal's order. It is, therefore, difficult to understand how the Tribunal could in such circumstances say that the petition had become infructuous. In fact the appellant can have a grievance that the respondent had committed contempt by not obeying the interim order of the Tribunal. We are not suggesting that any contempt action be taken but surely the Tribunal could not have dismissed the petition of the appellant merely because he was relieved with effect from October 4, 1991. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the order of the Tribunal and remit the matter to the Tribunal to decide it in accordance with law. There will be no order as to costs.