Dismissed

Nisar Ahmad v. State Animal and Husbsndry Depors

Rajasthan HC5 May 2015CW/5945/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking interference with an interim stay on the petitioner's transfer. The court held that there was no need to interfere with the Tribunal's interim order as the matter was under final consideration and declined to classify the interim order as perversely vitiated.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to pursue remedy in pending appeal before the Tribunal; Tribunal directed to dispose of appeal within seven days.

Nisar Ahmad Vs State Animal and Husbsndry… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan
at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur

¶3

ORDER

¶4

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5945/2015
Nisar Ahmad v. State of Rajasthan & Ors

¶5

Date of Order : 5.5.2015

¶6

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA

¶7

Mr. K.N. Sharma for the petitioner

¶8

Heard.

¶9

Perused the impugned order dated
22.10.2014 passed by the Rajasthan Civil
ServicesAppellateTribunal,Jaipur
(hereinafter 'the learned Tribunal') in a
pending appeal filed against the order of
transfer dated 14.10.2014 and consequent
relieving order dated 1.4.2015 where-under
the petitioner has been transferred from
Veterinary Hospital, Chhabda to Veterinary
Hospital, Jaipla- both in Baran District.

¶10

A perusal of the impugned order dated

¶11

22.10.2014 passed by the learned Tribunal
indicates that in the event T.A & D.A had not
been granted to the petitioner in pursuance
of his transfer in issue, the transfer order
was to remain stayed. Yet however if T.A &
D.A were to be granted, transfer order was to

¶12

¶13

be effective. The matter is yet pending
before the learned Tribunal for final
disposal.

¶14

Mr. K.N Sharma counsel appearing for

¶15

the petitioner submits that pursuant to the
order dated 22.10.2014 passed by the learned
Tribunal, the petitioner was granted T.A &
D.A on his transfer resulting his being
relieved. It has been submitted that the
petitioner is in the circumstances aggrieved
of the Tribunal not protecting him during the
pendency of the appeal pending before it
against the order of transfer.

¶16

Having heard counsel for the

¶17

petitioner and having perused the impugned
order dated 22.10.2014 passed by the learned
Tribunal, I am of the considered view that
there is no occasion to interfere with the
interim order dated 22.10.2014 passed by the
learned Tribunal as the matter is under its

¶18

final consideration on the merits of the
impugned transfer dated 14.10.2014. It is the
consistent practice of this Court not to
interfere with interim orders by Courts /
Tribunal below unless they are palpably
perverse or clearly vitiated by a

¶19

¶20

misdirection in law. No such ground is made
out in the case at hand. The petitioner
should in the circumstances be required to
pursue his remedy in pending appeal. The
learned Tribunal is directed to dispose of
the petitioner's appeal on the next day of
hearing or in any event within seven days
thereaftersubjecthowevertothe

¶21

petitioner's own cooperation.

¶22

The writ petition stands disposed of
accordingly.

¶23

(ALOK SHARMA), J

¶24

Sharma NK

¶25

“All corrections made in the judgment/order have been
incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.”

¶26

NK Sharma, Sr.P.A

Nisar Ahmad v. State Animal and Husbsndry Depors

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nisar Ahmad v. State Animal and Husbsndry Depors

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Syed Sahid Ali Vs Director Secondary Education Ors.

Sunder Lal Jat Vs State Panchayati Raj Dep Ors.

Ratan Lal Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Mukesh Kumar Vs State Panchyati Raj Dep Ors.

Rajendra Kumar Sharma Vs R S R T C and Ors.

Om Prakash Sharma Vs State of Raj and Anr.