Tribunal transfer power cannot nullify a two-member Bench's interim order; only the seised Bench can control interim relief.

The Chairman of the Central Administrative Tribunal, while exercising transfer power under Section 25 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, had no authority to stay proceedings before a two-member Bench or nullify its interim order. Section 25 permits transfer only, while interim relief is governed by Section 24 and remains within the seised Bench's jurisdiction. Section 5(6) does not authorise a smaller forum or single Member to vacate or render ineffective an order passed by a larger Bench unless the statute expressly provides otherwise. The stay order was therefore unsustainable in law, and the High Court's interference was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Chairman of the Central Administrative Tribunal, while exercising power to transfer a case under Section 25 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, could stay proceedings pending before a two-member Bench and render the interim order of that Bench inoperative.

Analysis: The statutory scheme distinguishes the Tribunal's adjudicatory power from the Chairman's administrative power. Section 25 confers only the power to transfer cases from one Bench to another, while interim orders are governed by Section 24 and may be passed by the Tribunal or the Bench seised of the matter. Section 5(6) permits the Chairman or an authorised Member to function as a single Member Bench only in the classes of cases specified by order, and does not authorise nullification of orders passed by a larger Bench. Judicial propriety also requires that an order made by a Bench of higher strength cannot be vacated, varied, or rendered ineffective by a smaller forum unless statute expressly so permits.

Conclusion: The Chairman had no jurisdiction to stay the proceedings before the two-member Bench. The stay order was unsustainable in law, and the High Court's interference was correct.

---