The discretion for granting interim mandatory injunction should be exercised in rare cases and not in a routine manner. The grant of interim mandatory injunction requires the highest degree of satisfaction and should only be granted to restore the status quo.

JUDGMENT :

(Sandeep V. Marne, J.)

1. Petitioner has filed this petition challenging interim order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) on 19 June 2023 in Original Application No.699/2023, by which the Tribunal has directed Respondent no. 2 to start working on the post of Tahsildar (Revenue), Collector Office, Pune from 20 June 2023. Petitioner was posted on that post vide order dated 16 June 2023 and claims to have taken over charge of post on 19 June 2016. It is Petitioner’s grouse that since he had already taken over charge of the post, the Tribunal could not have directed Respondent no.2 to function on that post, that too without hearing him.

2. Petitioner was posted as Tahsildar (Revenue) in Collector Office, Nashik since 23 April 2020. By order dated 12 April 2023, one Shri. Parmeshwar Ankushrao Kasule came to be transferred and posted on the post of Tahsildar (Revenue) Collector Office, Nashik which was occupied by. Petitioner. He was not given any other posting and was made to wait for a posting.

3. Order dated 16 June 2023 was issued by which Petitioner, who was waiting for posting, was transferred and posted as Tahsildar (Revenue), Collector Office, Pune. Respondent no.2 was functioning on that post since 10 February 2020. Though Petitioner was transferred in place of Respondent no.2, no posting was granted to Respondent no.2, who was rendered as ‘waiting for posting’.

4. Petitioner reported for duty and took over charge of the post of Tahsildar (Revenue), Collector Office, Pune on 19 June 2023. The Resident Collector, Pune communicated the factum of Petitioner taking over charge of the post to the Divisional Commissioner by letter dated 19 June 2023. 4. Respondent no.2 filed O.A. No.691/2023 before the Tribunal on 19 June 2023. It was moved before the Tribunal on the same day. The Tribunal proceeded to grant interim relief in favour of Respondent no. 2 on 19 June 2023. The interim order granted by the Tribunal reads thus :

“9. In such circumstances, prima facie, the case is made out by the learned Advocate to grant Interim Relief. Applicant is hereby directed to start working from tomorrow on her post.”

5. The Original Application is now posted for hearing on 17 July 2023.

6. We have heard Mr. Talekar, the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, Mr. Bandiwadekar, the learned Counsel appearing for Respondent no.2 and Mr. Samant the learned AGP appearing for the State Government.

7. Since the Original Application questioning the validity of the transfer order is already pending before the Tribunal, it would not be appropriate for this Court to record any finding on that issue in the present petition. The only issue that can be gone into at this stage is whether the Tribunal was justified in passing the interim order in favour of Respondent no.2.

8. When the Original Application was heard by the Tribunal on 19 June 2023 (we are informed that it was heard in the afternoon session), an Advocate appeared on behalf of the Petitioner stating that he had received instructions to so appear. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the said Advocate informed the Tribunal the factum of Petitioner taking over charge of the post. Though this aspect is not specifically recorded by the Tribunal in its order, the fact that the Tribunal directed Respondent no2 to start working on the post from ‘tomorrow’, would show that the Tribunal was made aware of the fact that the Petitioner had taken over charge of the post on 19 June 2023.

9. The issue that therefore arises for our consideration is whether the Tribunal could have directed restoration of status-quo ante, by way of an interim order which would have the effect of removing Petitioner from the post and reinstating Respondent no. 2 on that post.

10. We have already reproduced the interim order passed by the Tribunal. It has ‘directed’ Respondent No. 2 to start working on the post from 20 June 2023. The order is thus in the nature of interim