IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14755 of 2004 1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE D.G., DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, DAK BHAWAN, NEW DELHI. 2. THE POST MASTER GENERAL, NORTHERN REGION, MUZAFFARPUR. 3. THE DIRECTOR, POSTAL SERVICES, NORTHERN REGION, MUZAFFARPUR. 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT, RMS “U” DIVISION, MUZAFFARPUR. 5. THE HEAD RECORD OFFICER, RMS “U” DIVISION, MUZAFFARPUR. ………… Petitioners Versus 1. INDRAJEET KUMAR, SON OF SHRI NAND KISHOR SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-HUSEPUR, P.S.- SAKRA, DISTRICT- MUZAFFARPUR AT PRESENT POSTED AS GDSMM O/O THE HEAD RECORD OFFICER, RMS “U” DIVISION, MUZAFFARPUR. 2. SOHAN PRASAD SAH, SON OF SHRI RAGHUNATH PRASAD SAH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-DHARHARA, DISTRICT- VAISHALI AT PRESENT POSTED AS GDSMM O/O THE HEAD RECORD OFFICER, RMS “U” DIVISION, MUZAFFARPUR. 3. THE REGISTRAR, CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, PATNA BENCH, PATNA. ………….. Respondents ----------- 3 05.03.2010 None appears on behalf of the parties. This writ petition is directed against the interim order dated 22.4.2004 (Annexure- 1), passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, in O.A. No. 312 of 2004 (Indrajeet Kumar & Anr versus The Union of India and Ors.), whereby the order(s) of termination of original applicants from service have been stayed pending final disposal of the original application. 2. We have perused the materials on record. It appears that the two original applicants were working as Extra Departmental Mail Man (EDMM), as per order of appointment dated 22.1.1997. They had joined their duties on 1.2.1997, and 2 were allowed to function as such. The respondent authorities realised that, against seven (7) sanctioned posts, more number of persons had been appointed necessitating termination of service of persons beyond seven. The services of the two original applicants were, therefore, dispensed with leading to the aforesaid O.A. No. 312 of 2004. By the impugned order, the Tribunal, pending consideration of the matter, stayed operation of the orders whereby services of the two applicants had been dispensed with, leading to the present writ petition. By order dated 2.12.2004, passed in the present writ petition, a Division Bench of this Court stayed operation of the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. 3. We feel very unhappy at the approach of the Tribunal in passing the impugned order, staying operation of the order of termination of service of the original applicants. It is trite law that operation of an order terminating the services of an employee is not stayed by courts, primarily for the reason that in case the employee ultimately succeeds, he can always be compensated in terms of money, and his original position including seniority can be restored. Otherwise, it would be inflicting the services of an unwanted employee on an unwilling employer. In case the matter is decided against the employee, than it would mean that the employer was compelled to take work from an incompetent or illegally appointed person, and had to pay wages to him. It may not then be possible for the employer to recover the wages. The 3 balance of convenience in such cases, therefore, entirely lies in favour of the employer. Learned Tribunal has lost sight of the well established principle of law and fell in the error of passing the impugned order. The same is hereby set aside. 5. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 22.4.2004, is hereby set aside. pkj (S.K. Katriar, J.) ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )