- (1.) The genesis of the controversy lies with the order of transfer issued by the Railway to the petitioner by which he was transferred from Eastern Railway to Southern Railway. The Tribunal held, it was not permissible. Hence, the petition before us by the Railway.
(2.) The second writ petition by the Railway pertains to the modified order of transfer issued after setting aside of the earlier order of transfer by the Tribunal. The Tribunal again set aside the second order of transfer by which the petitioner was transferred from one place to the other within Eastern Railway.
(3.) The Railway by the above two petitions challenged the order of the Tribunal. The Railway contended before us that the Tribunal erred in holding that the orders of transfer were issued as a result of vindictive and mala fide attitude on the part of the Railway. The matter came up before the Division Bench on August 24, 2011 when the Division Bench, presided over by one of us (A.K. Banerjee, J.) heard the matter in part. The matter again came up on September 29, 2011. The Court found that the matter was unnecessarily being prolonged at the instance of the respondent. Since the adjournment was prayed for on behalf of the respondent, the Railway prayed for interim protection. The Division Bench observed as follows:- "Question thus remains, as to what would be the interim mode of arrangement with regard to the order of transfer. The principal challenge of the petitioner, as we find from the petition, is against inter zonal transfer. Such question has to be decided on affidavits as directed above. Hence, the Railway should keep the impugned order of transfer in abeyance for the time being. They would, however, be at liberty to transfer the petitioner to any other place within Eastern Railway and in case such order of transfer is passed the petitioner would be bound to join the said post without prejudice to his rights and contentions in the present petition.";