A conditional stay order passed by a Tribunal, which states that if the competent authority issues an order for grant of travelling allowance to the respondent, the stay order would come to an end automatically, is not illegal.

1. - The respondent No.5 Baldeo Singh Suda, who was working as Tahsildar Kolayat, District Bikaner was transferred on the post of Tahsildar Lohawat vide order dated 1.3.20014 along with 143 Tahsildar's by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer. The respondent No.5 challenged his transfer by way of an appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'). On 12.3.2014, the Tribunal, while admitting the appeal, has stayed the execution of the transfer order dated 1.3.2014 qua the respondent No.5 while observing that if the respondent No.5 has not joined the duties pursuant to the said transfer order, the execution of the same shall be stayed qua the respondent No. 5 till further orders. However, while passing the said interim order, the Tribunal had clarified that if the competent authority issues any order for paying travelling allowances to the respondent No.5, the said interim order shall come to an end automatically. Being aggrieved with the clarification made by the Tribunal in the order dated 12.3.2014 of automatic vacation of interim order on paying of travelling allowance, the respondent No.5 preferred the writ petition before this Court, which came to be disposed of by learned Single Judge vide order dated April 16, 2014 without calling upon the respondents. In the said order dated April 16, 2014, the learned Single Judge has observed as under:-

"In the opinion of this Court, at the time of hearing appeal against the transfer order at admission stage by the Tribunal, if Tribunal feels that there is ground for granting interim order and granting interim order, then obviously matter is to be decided finally after hearing both the parties upon the grounds taken in the appeal, therefore, ordinarily the Tribunal should not grant any liberty to the respondents not to comply the directions of the Tribunal on payment of TA & DA but in this case, such liberty has been granted, therefore, the Tribunal is directed to decide the appeal itself within a period of two months from the date of receiving certified copy of this order and in the meantime, the petitioner shall not be disturbed from the place of posting till decision of the appeal by the Tribunal."

2. Being aggrieved with the said directions, the appellant, who has been transferred as Tahsildar Kolayat, has preferred this appeal while contending that the said order has been passed by the learned Single Judge without providing any opportunity to the appellant because on the first date of hearing, the learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petition even without issuing notices to the respondents. It is further contended that pursuant to the transfer order dated 1.3.2014, the appellant was already relieved from the post of Tahsildar Khivsar and has joined his duties as Tahsildar Kolayat on 3.3.2014, however, with the direction of learned Single Judge of not to disturb the respondent No.5 from his place of posting till decision of appeal by the Tribunal, the appellant will be displaced from the post of Tahsildar Kolayat. The learned counsel for the appellant has further argued that the Board of Revenue has passed the order dated 03.04.2014 whereby, it has clarified that the respondent No.5 is entitled for travelling allowance as well as joining period and, therefore, in view of the said order passed by the Board of Revenue, the challenge of the respondent No.5 to his transfer order on the ground of nonpayment of travelling allowance has become nonexistent. It is contended that the fact of joining of the appellant at Kolayat and the passing of the order dated 3.4.2014 by the Board of Revenue of payment of travelling allowances to the respondent No.5 has not been brought into notice of the Court and, therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is liable to be quashed and set aside.

3. Per contra, Shri Mukesh Rajpurohit appearing on behalf of respondents No.5 (caveator) has argued that the Tribunal h