Ashok Kumar Meena Son Of Shri Lallu Ram Meena vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The High Court held that it found no grounds to interfere with the impugned interim order passed by the CAT. The Court noted that the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners did not press the writ petition at that stage. However, the counsel prayed for a direction to the Tribunal to expedite the hearing and disposal of the Original Application. Consequently, the High Court disposed of the writ petition as not pressed, without interfering with the CAT's order dated September 30, 2025. The Court directed the Tribunal to expedite the hearing of Original Application No. 514/2025 and endeavor to decide it preferably within two months from the completion of pleadings. The respondents' counsel undertook to file a reply to the Original Application within one month if not already filed. The ratio decidendi is that when a party withdraws a petition without pressing it, the court will not delve into the merits of the original challenge but may grant consequential directions for expeditious disposal of the underlying matter.

Facts

The petitioners, nine Inspectors working in CGST and Customs departments in Rajasthan, are challenging their inter-zonal transfers to various other zones. Their challenge is primarily against Rule 5 of the Recruitment Rules, 2016, as amended. The petitioners had filed an Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Jaipur Bench, seeking interim relief against their relieving orders dated April 15, 2025. The CAT, by an interim order dated September 30, 2025, declined to grant a stay, noting that the prayer for absorption of petitioners had already been rejected and this was a second round of litigation. The CAT also relied on a Supreme Court judgment. The present writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court challenges the CAT's interim order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the interim order dated 30.09.2025 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Jaipur Bench, declining to grant an interim stay against the relieving orders dated 15.04.2025 of the petitioners, is sustainable in law? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioners argued that the CAT erred in declining interim relief. They sought to challenge Rule 5 of the Recruitment Rules, 2016, as amended, which formed the basis for their transfers. They relied on the fact that they were seeking to question the transfer orders and that the CAT's decision to deny a stay was not justified. Respondent's Contention: The respondents (Union of India, CBIC, Chief Commissioner CGST) contended, as noted by the CAT, that the prayer for absorption of the petitioners had already been declined and that this was a second round of litigation. The CAT also relied on the Supreme Court judgment in S.K. Nausad Rahaman & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. [(2022) 12 SCC 1] in support of its decision.