1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8431 OF 2008 AND WRIT PETITION NO.8437 OF 2008 AND WRIT PETITION NO.518 OF 2009 AND WRIT PETITION NO.519 OF 2009 AND WRIT PETITION NO.723 OF 2009 AND WRIT PETITION NO.6557 OF 2008 AND WRIT PETITION NO.6899 OF 2008 AND WRIT PETITION NO.6903 OF 2008 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders Mr.Suresh Kumar for the Petitioners. Mr.R.R.Shetty for the Respondents. CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH, J. Dated: 19th November, 2009 P.C.: 1. Petitions are heard finally by consent of 2 parties. The facts relevant and necessary for deciding these petitions are that there were total number of 15 petitions filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal challenging the orders whereby the Petitioners were transferred. Out of 15 applications, 4 applications being Original Applications Nos.271, 272 & 273 of 2007 were decided by common order by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai by its order dated 28 th August, 2007. The Tribunal allowed the Original Applications and set aside the transfer orders which 3 were challenged in those Applications. 2 Feeling aggrieved by the common order passed in four applications, Writ Petition No.509 of 2008 was filed in this Court. The Division Bench of this court by a reasoned order dated 4 th March, 2008 dismissed the petition. Then, the remaining 11 Applications came up before the Central Administrative Tribunal at Mumbai. At the hearing of those applications, the Petitioner had relied on the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 4 28 th August, 2007 passed in four Applications as also on the order of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.509 of 2008. Tribunal in paragraph 14.4 and 14.5 of its order dated 17 th April, 2008 considered the earlier order passed by the Tribunal as also the judgment of this court dismissing Writ Petition No. 509 of 2008 and relying on that allowed 11 applications also. It is this order dated 17 th April, 2008 allowing remaining 11 applications which is challenged in these petitions. 5 3 The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners first submitted that they have filed Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court against the order of the Division Bench dated 4 th March, 2008 in Writ Petition No.509 of 2008. According to the learned Counsel, therefore, as the Special Leave petition has been filed before the Supreme Court, we should not dispose of these Writ Petitions relying on the order of the Division Bench dated 4 th March, 2008. He submits that similar transfer orders were challenged before the Central Administrative 6 Tribunal, Patna, and that application was dismissed. Against that order, Writ Petition being CWJC-16346/2007 was filed before the Patna High Court and the Patna High Court by order dated 7-1-2008 rejected that petition. He invited our attention to the order dated 7-1-2008. 4 In our opinion, merely because Special Leave Petition has been filed by the Petitioner against the judgment of the Division Bench dated 4 th March, 2008, we will not be justified in declining to follow that 7 order. Secondly, so far as reliance placed on order of the Patna High Court is concerned, the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal challenged before the Patna High Court has not been placed before us. Perusal of the order of the Patna High Court dated 7-1-2008 shows that the only reason the Patna High Court did not entertain the petition was the Petitioner in that petition had already joined the place of transfer. We do not find that the Patna High Court decide the petition on merits. In our opinion, therefore, we have 8 no escape but to follow the judgment of the Division Bench dated 4 th March, 2008 passed in Writ Petition No. 509 of 2009, which has also been followed by the CAT in making the order which is impugned in these petitions. 5 In the result, therefore, petitions fail and are dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (K.K.TATED, J.)