16.07.2026 rpan/09 WPCT 52 of 2026 Union of India & Others – Versus – Shri Pritam Majumder Mr. Sauvik Nandy, Mr. Shaunak Ghosh … for the Petitioners. Mr. P. C. Das, Mr. Anurag Chatterjee … for the Respondent. The present writ petition has been preferred by the Union of India and its functionaries challenging an order dated 7th March, 2024 passed by the learned Tribunal in the original application preferred the respondent, namely, Pritam Majumder (in short, Pritam), being OA 350/01207/2022 which was heard along with a contempt petition, being C.P. 350/139/2022. A transfer order was issued against Pritam on 11th April, 2022. Challenging the same, Pritam preferred an original application (in short, OA), being OA 350/675/2022 in which initially an interim order was passed on 18th April, 2022 observing inter alia that ‘let the applicant be not released, if not already released till the next date of listing, and if released no coercive action be taken against him.’ The said OA was ultimately disposed of by an order dated 5th May, 2022 directing the petitioners to consider the representation submitted by Pritam against the order of transfer and to issue a reasoned order within one month. Pursuant to such direction, the concerned respondents passed an order on 13th June, 2022 which was again challenged by Pritam by filing an original application, being OA 350/01207/2022 in which an order was passed on 9th September, 2022 directing the respondents/authorities to exchange their affidavits with an interim order that ‘till such time, the applicant’s transfer shall remained stayed.’ As the said order was not complied with Pritam preferred a contempt application which was finally heard and judgment was reserved on 24th January, 2023. As the OA was pending and as the contempt application was also not disposed of, Pritam approached this Court by filing a writ petition, being WPCT 127 of 2023 averring inter alia that taking advantage of long pendency of the OA and non-disposal of the contempt application, Pritam was not being allowed to join the post from which he had been transferred and his salary was withheld. Upon contested hearing the said writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 16th November, 2023 with direction upon the learned 2 Tribunal to dispose of the OA as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks. The learned Tribunal was also directed to pass final order in the contempt application and considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case the Court directed that ‘no coercive step shall be taken against Pritam till the disposal of the second OA’. Thereafter, the OA and the contempt application were disposed of by the order dated 7th March, 2024. The petitioners thereafter filed a review application which was dismissed by an order dated 5th February, 2025. In the midst thereof, the competent authority passed an order on 6th May, 2024 observing that Pritam ‘has been taken in the strength of D.o.O(C&S), Kolkata w.e.f. 02.05.2024(F/N), subject to outcome of CAT/Courts in this matter.’ Mr. Nandy, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the learned Tribunal erroneously directed the petitioners to treat the period from 9th September, 2022 till 2nd May, 2024 as a period spent on duty and to pay full salary for the said period in favour of Pritam being oblivious of the fact that Pritam admittedly did not join his duties at the transferred place of posting and remained voluntarily absent from service. 3 He contends that having not set aside the order of transfer while passing the order impugned, the learned Tribunal erroneously directed payment of full salary to Pritam for the period from 11th April, 2022 till 2nd May, 2024. Mr. Nandy further submits that Pritam had already been relieved from his post on 11.04.2022 and after the interim order was passed by this Tribunal, status quo was maintained and the applicant was not coerced to join in his new place of posting. Thus in deference to the Court’s orders, status quo was maintained. Mr. Das, learned advocate appearing for Pritam, however, denies and disputes the contention of Mr. Nandy and submits that in spite of the interim order passed in the OA, Pritam was not allowed to work in his parent post. In view of the order dated 9th September, 2022, there was no obligation on the part of Pritam to go and join the transferred post. He contends that in spite of being the model employer the authorities have acted in an unfair manner. Taking advantage of long pendency of the OA and the contempt application they themselves did not allow Pritam to join the post from which he was transferred and also withheld his salary. For such act of the petitioners, Pritam cannot be made 4 to suffer. In the said conspectus, the learned Tribunal directed the petitioners to treat the period from 9th September, 2022 to the date of implementation of the order passed by the petitioners on the representation received from Pritam as period on duty and to pay full salary for the said period. There is, thus, no infirmity in the order warranting interference of this Court. We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record. It has been argued that Pritam intentionally did not go and join the transferred post though he was released from the post on the date of issuance of the order of transfer. Such argument is not acceptable since there was a subsisting interim order that the transfer order shall remain stayed. Having not allowed Pritam to join the post from which he was transferred and on the strength of such contumacious act, the petitioners cannot urge that Pritam is not entitled to the salary for the concerned period. For mere pendency of the OA and thereafter, the review application, the petitioners ought not to have prevented Pritam to join the post from which he was transferred. Even after dismissal of the review application on 5th February, 5 2025, the petitioners waited for a further period of about three months and passed an order ultimately on 6th May, 2024. In the said conspectus, we are unable to accept Mr. Nandy’s argument that Pritam intentionally did not join the transferred post and for such laches, he cannot be paid full salary pertaining to the period from 9th September, 2022 till 2nd May, 2024. The learned Tribunal upon detailed consideration of the facts arrived at a specific finding and we do not find any infirmity in the orders impugned. Accordingly, the writ petition, being WPCT 52 of 2026 is dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties, upon compliance of all requisite formalities. (Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, A.C.J.) 6