IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 17099 of 2011 Date of Decision: 13.9.2011. Union of India & others --Petitioners Versus Central Administrative Tribunal & another --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI. Present:- Mr. Sanjay Goyal, Advocate for the petitioners. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) Validity of the order dated 1.7.2011 passed by the C.A.T. Chandigarh Bench has been questioned in the present writ petition. Respondent no.2, who is working as a Superintendent has been transferred from Chandigarh to J&K vide order dated 21.5.2011. He challenged this order by filing O.A No. 632/CH/2011 before the C.A.T., Chandigarh Bench. The Tribunal on 28.6.2011 passed the following order:- “ Heard. Notice. No formal notices are required to be issued to the respondents as service on them is waived by Mr. Deepak Agnihotri, Sr. Standing Counsel for the Union of India. He seeks and is granted two weeks' time for filing reply. List on 12.7.2011. In the meantime, the impugned order (annexure A-1) is stayed qua the applicant if he has not yet been relieved from the present place of posting. Dasti.” CWP No. 17099 of 2011 -2- It appears that when this order came to be passed, respondent no.2 had been relieved from his place of posting at Chandigarh. He made an application seeking modification of the order dated 28.6.2011. This application was again considered by the Tribunal and consequently order dated 1.7.2011 impugned herein has been passed in the following manner:- “ 4. In the meantime, the impugned order (annexure A-1) is stayed qua the applicant if he has not yet joined his new place of posting.” It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that once respondent no.2 had been relieved from his place of posting, it was not open to the Tribunal to have stayed the transfer on the ground that he has not yet joined his new place of posting. The order impugned is only an ad interim order. The Tribunal is seized of the O.A. We are informed that the matter is listed today before the Tribunal. The Tribunal in its wisdom passed the order impugned by way of interim relief. It cannot be said that the order suffers from any illegality. In the matter of judicial discretion, it is not appropriate for the appellate court to interfere. We are not inclined to interfere in the impugned order. This petition is, accordingly, dismissed. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE 13.9.2011. lucky