Heard both sides on Admission. 

O.A. is admitted. 

This is the second round of litigation.  The applicant is seeking interim order granting stay of the order of her temporary diversion from the hospital where she is working in Kerala to the ESIC Hospital Joka, Kolkatta.  In the earlier round of litigation this Tribunal directed the respondents as under:

"Since we feel that the present OA can be disposed of at the admission stage itself, we permit the applicant to file a detailed representation before the competent respondent authority.  If such a representation is received within 5 days from today, the competent respondent authority shall take a decision thereon within 15 days from the date of receipt of the representation and communicated the same to the applicant.  Till such a decision is communicated to the applicant, the respondents shall not implement Annexure A8 order in respect of the applicant."

The applicant has approached this Tribunal again with the present O.A.,  being aggrieved by the order passed by the respondent authority, Annexure A5 and A13.

When this case was taken up on 28.06.2017 it was contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the impugned order rejecting her representation and the impugned order of her temporary diversion were not passed by the competent authority. Therefore, we directed the respondents to file an Affidavit stating as to whether the person who issued the said orders were having the right competence. 

Today when the matter was taken up again for hearing on the interim relief sought in this O.A., Shri Ajaykumar, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents produced two documents viz. i) Memorandum No.(Pt.F.) a-22/15/01/IRT/2015-Medical VI dated 28.10.2016 and (ii) Office order No.107/2016 dated 10.10.2016 authorising the Medical Superintendent of the ESISC Hospitals concerned, to temporarily transfer/divert the nursing officials to Joka, Kolkatta.  

We prima facie find that the authority who issued the impugned order in this O.A. has competence to issue and to consider the representation also. We however, leave the final decision regarding the competence of the aforesaid authority, at the time of final hearing of this O.A.

Nevertheless, we note that in the impugned order rejecting the applicant's representation the personal grievances of the applicant - which are of a very grave nature - have not been adverted to by the authority in the impugned order rejecting the representation of the applicant.  This shows that the authority has not considered the relevant factors involved in this case, and therefore, there is some merit in the arguments of the learned counsel for the applicant.  

Therefore, by way of interim order we stay the operation of the impugned orders in this O.A. and direct that they shall not be compelled to join Joka, Kolkotta if in the meantime the respondents have already relieved the applicants such relieving orders shall also be kept in abeyance. 

List the matter for completing the pleadings in the Registrar's Court on 11.09.2017 and thereafter post for final hearing. 

Issue a copy of this order to the learned counsel appearing on both sides.