WP(C) 6524/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.D. AGARWAL (Amitava Roy, J) Heard Ms. B. Devi, learned counsel for the petitioners. For the order proposed to be passed, it is unnecessary to issue formal notice. The facts, in brief, essential to be recorded for the disposal of the instant pe tition at this stage are that the respondent was temporarily appointed as Substi tute Emergency Peon by order dated 20.05.2010 of the APO/II/TSK in a pay scale o f Rs.5,200-20,000/- and was attached to the then CMS/DBRT with effect from that date. The terms and conditions subject to which the appointment had been made w ere detailed in the said order. The officer to which the respondent was attache d was thereafter transferred as CMS/TSK and the respondent was permitted to be a t his disposal in the same capacity as before. On the voluntary retirement of th e said officer, on and from 31.10.2010, the respondent was terminated by the ord er dated 02.11.2010. The order of termination in specific terms cited the volun tary retirement of the officer concerned as the reason therefor. Being aggrieved, the respondent assailed his termination before the learned Cent ral Administrative Tribunal, Gauhati Bench, Guwahati with O.A. No.267/2010. The learned Tribunal by its order dated 12.11.2010 admitted the Original Applicatio n and in the interim directed the petitioners herein to keep the order of termin ation in abeyance until further order(s). Being aggrieved, the Railways have app roached this Court seeking to invoke its extra-ordinary jurisdiction. The learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that having regard to the term s and conditions of the appointment of the respondent, the order impugned is val id and justified in law and therefore the interim restraint imposed by the learn ed Tribunal is uncalled for and merits interference by this Court. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a consideration of the p leaded facts as well as the orders of appointment and the termination of the res pondent, we are not inclined to intervene at this stage. We do not wish to dila te on this issue further, lest it may prejudice the prospects of the parties bef ore the learned Tribunal. The interim order having been passed in the judicial direction of the learned Tribunal and pending disposal of the Original applicati on, we do not feel impelled to interfere therewith at this stage. The view take n by the learned Tribunal in this regard is a plausible one. According to us, however the proceedings before the learned Tribunal needs to be expedited for fi nal disposal. Thus, while maintaining the interim restraint granted by it as co ntained in its order dated 12.11.2010, we hereby request the learned Tribunal to ensure that the proceedings before it are disposed of finally within a period o f three months from today. No costs.