Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
RAJIV SHAKDHER, TALWANT SINGH
Swaraj Chillar – Appellant
Versus
Ministry of Railways – Respondent
JUDGMENT
[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]
Rajiv Hakdher, J.: (ORAL)
1. Issue notice.
1.1. Mr Jagjit Singh accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.
2. With the consent of the counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal, at this stage itself.
3. The writ petition is directed against the order dated 26.11.2021, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal [in short "the Tribunal"] in O.A. No.2643/2021.
3.1. Mr Manjeet Singh Reen, who appears on behalf of the petitioner [i.e., the original applicant], says that the petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that neither the main matter nor his interim application, preferred in the main matter, has not been disposed of by the Tribunal.
3.3. According to the counsel for the petitioner, twice opportunity has been given to the respondents, to file a reply to the interim application, filed on behalf of the petitioner.
3.4. We are informed that the matter was listed on 15.12.2021, which is, the date adverted to in the impugned order. We are told that the matter has, once again, been adjourned to 07.01.2022.
4. To be noted, even according to the counsel for the petitioner,
An inter-divisional transfer cannot occur while an inquiry into pending charges is ongoing, emphasizing the need for due legal consideration before such actions.
Administrative transfers cannot occur while an inquiry is pending, ensuring due process within administrative proceedings.
The court emphasized the importance of prompt consideration of the main matter or interim application by the Tribunal and instructed the respondents to refrain from taking any hasty actions against t....
The court emphasized the importance of timely disposal of matters by the Tribunal and considered the legal aspect of inter-divisional transfer while a charge is being enquired into.
The court mandates timely resolution of pending matters by administrative tribunals, emphasizing procedural efficiency and the preservation of parties' rights.
The court mandates the Tribunal to address pending applications promptly to ensure effective relief and maintain status quo for affected parties.
The Court upheld the need to maintain status quo on a transfer order pending the Tribunal's examination, ensuring the petitioner's rights are preserved until a decision is made.
The Tribunal must adjudicate appeals on their merits and cannot defer decisions by directing parties to file representations.
The court emphasized the necessity for the Tribunal to conduct a thorough evaluation of legal principles and factual context before vacating interim orders affecting civil service officers' postings.
A government employee cannot claim an automatic right to an interim stay against a transfer order within the same headquarters without demonstrating specific hardship or prejudice to service conditio....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
