By the Court.—Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar Pandey, Advocate for petitioners and Sri Harish Chandra Mishra, Advocate for respondents.

2. This writ petition has been filed by Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (hereinafter referred to as the “BSNL”) and its authorities, assailing an interim order dated 12.8.2016 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) in Original Application (hereinafter referred to as the “O.A.”) No. 1053 of 2016.

3. Respondent-1, Sri Adesh Kumar Gupta, is an Officer of Indian Telecom Services (hereinafter referred to as the “ITS”) and came to be posted in BSNL after its creation in 2001. It is said that he remained posted at NOIDA from time to time, i.e., 1.5.2001 to 30.11.2001, 1.4.2003 to 31.1.2004, 3.12.2006 to 29.6.2008, 1.4.2009 to 14.9.2009 and lastly from 8.11.2013 to 16.5.2016. The name of Respondent-1 was included in Agreed List 2015, prepared, of the officers likely to be transferred. It was circulated by BSNL Head Quarters to Senior General Manager (Personnel), New Delhi vide letter dated 24.4.2015. On 24.7.2015, an order of transfer was issued transferring Respondent-1 from NOIDA, U.P. West Circle to Meerut, U.P. West Circle.

4. The aforesaid order was challenged by Respondent-1 in O.A. No. 330/00994/2015 under Section 19 of Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 1985”) and by order dated 31.7.2015, Tribunal found that against existing policy of transferring persons after four years, Respondent-1 was sought to be transferred within a period of less than two years and consequently stayed the same.

5. Petitioners put in appearance and filed counter-affidavit alongwith stay vacation application. Tribunal, from pleadings, found that Respondent-1 had also made out a case that impugned transfer was to accommodate one Arun Kumar who was impleaded as Respondent-3 in aforesaid O.A. as also against the policy of Government that there shall not be any punitive transfer unless there is sufficient material or conclusion that an officer is lacking integrity. By order dated 21.8.2015, Tribunal rejected stay vacation application and confirmed interim order dated 31.7.2015. Petitioners thereafter without having final adjudication on the validity of transfer order dated 24.7.2015,, on their own, cancelled order of transfer vide order dated 10.5.2016 and thereafter, simultaneously passed another order within a gap of two days i.e. on 12.5.2016 transferring Respondent-1 to Dehradun and retaining Arun Kumar in place of Respondent-1.

6. Respondent-1 moved a miscellaneous application before Tribunal challenging order dated 12.5.2016 and this order of transfer was also stayed by Tribunal. Petitioners challenged this order of stay before this Court in Writ Petition No. 26022 of 2016 on the ground that O.A., whereby transfer order dated 24.7.2015 was challenged, rendered infructuous when transfer order was cancelled on 10.5.2016, hence it was not permissible for Tribunal to subsequently entertain miscellaneous application assailing subsequent transfer order dated 12.5.2016. This Court vide order dated 30.5.2016 disposed of the writ petition by directing Tribunal to take a final decision in O.A. as well as miscellaneous application, on the next date fixed which was 31.5.2016. Tribunal looked into the matter and found that there was an attempt on the part of BSNL and its authorities to play hide and seek by withdrawing transfer order dated 24.5.2015, which was stayed by Tribunal, so as to technically render O.A. infructuous and simultaneously passing a new order of transfer on 12.5.2016. Tribunal found that both these orders are interconnected, hence O.A. could have been amended challenging subsequent orders and granted opportunity to Respondent-1 to do needful and fixed matter on 7.7.2016 extending interim order to continue.

7. Again BSNL and its authorities came to this Court in Writ Petition No. 28675 of 2016. Learned co