P.D. Dinakaran, C.J.@mdashThe above writ petition is directed against the order dated 22nd August, 2008 made in Original Application No. 218/2008 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore. (for short, the Tribunal), quashing the order of transfer dated 8.5.2008 transferring the Respondent from Southern Regional Centre, Mysore to the Western Regional Centre, Udaipur.
2. According to the learned Counsel for the Respondent, the impugned order of transfer is contrary to the Guidelines issued by the Anthropological Survey of India regarding posting and transfer of employees, which governs the appellant herein. Guidelines 5 and 11 as approved by the Government in letter No. F.11-13/77-CA(I) dated 30.3.1977 and letter No. F. 11-50/83-CH.1 dated 14.9.1983 as modified, read as follows:
5. Officers engaged in research work shall not be transferred unless the project on which he or she is engaged has been completed and report thereon submitted to the Regional Officer or Supervisor to his satisfaction and accepted by the head Office, according to a time bound programme, which under no circumstances shall exceed the time limit of six months, after the transfer has become due.
**
11. Notwithstanding anything contained in Clauses 1 to 10 above, the Head of the Department, in his discretion, may transfer at any time, any officer in public interest or on compassionate ground, but in all such cases it shall be ensured that the projects in hand are completed and that no posts are transferred. Any snob transfer should, however, be brought to the notice of the administrative Ministry.
(emphasis supplied)
3. The next ground urged on behalf of the respondent is that the order of transfer suffers from malafide.
4. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the petitioner herein, based on the instructions from the Department, fairly submitted that the project for which the Respondent was working had not been completed and that the order of transfer had not been brought to the notice of the administrative Ministry.
5. In the circumstances, the Tribunal, by order dated 22.8.2008 which is impugned in the above writ petition, following the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of
6. Hence, the present writ petition.
7. However, Sri V.Y Kumar learned Counsel for the petitioner-Department herein, taking a diametrically opposite stand contends that the project where the respondent was working had already been completed; and that, in any event, the impugned order of transfer is sustainable on the ground of public interest
8. The learned Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, reiterated his submissions made before the Tribunal in order to sustain the order of the Tribunal dated 22.8.2008.
9. We have given our careful consideration to the submissions made above. In our considered opinion, the petitioner-Department having fairly submitted before the Tribunal that the project where the respondent was working had not been completed and that the orders of transfer had not been brought to the notice of the administrative Ministry, it may not be proper to entertain a totally contra- plea raised before us. The only option left for the petitioner-Department is to seek review of the order dated 22.8.2008 before the Tribunal itself. Of course, the counsel for the petitioner seeks to suspend the order of transfer till the counsel for the petitioner-department files a review petition.
(emphasis supplied)
10. Suffice it to suspend the order of the Tribunal dated 22.8.2008 for a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the order on the condition that the petitioner shall pay arrears of salary and to continue to pay the future salary to the respondent without any default
11. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
