Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
L. Ganga vs Union Of India on 10 February, 2017
Author: P.Gopinath
Bench: P.Gopinath
Central Administrative Tribunal
Ernakulam Bench
OA/180/00705/2016
Friday, the 10th February, 2017
CORAM
Hon'ble Mr.Justice N.K.Balakrishnan, Judicial Member
Hon'ble Mrs.P.Gopinath, Administrative Member
L. Ganga, aged 38 years
W/o. N. Satheesan,
Sub Post Master,
Kunnathur East S.O.,
Department of Posts.
Residing at Mamkoottathil Vadakathil,
Kannana Kuzhi P.O.,
Charummoodu, Alappuzha -690 505. . . . Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr.V.Sajith Kumar)
Versus
1. Union of India, represented by
the Secretary to Government,
Department of Posts,
Ministry of Communications,
Government of India,
New Delhi-110 011.
2. The Chief Postmaster General,
Kerala Circle, Trivandrum-695 033.
3. The Superintendent of Post Offices,
Pathanamthitta Postal Division,
Pathanamthitta - 689 645.
4. Smt. B. Bindu,
SPM, Sooranand North,
Pathanamthitta Division - 689 645. . . . Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr.C.P.Ravi Kumar, ACGSC)
The OA having been heard on 1 st February, 2017, this Tribunal
delivered the following order on 10.02.2017:
ORDER
By N.K.Balakrishnan, Judicial Member Challenging Annexure A1 order qua the applicant, she moved this Tribunal by filing OA 575/15. The third respondent was directed to reconsider Annexure A4 representation made by the applicant, consequent where to, Annexure A7 order was issued on 19.07.2016 by the second respondent holding that the transfer of the applicant should remain and that no change is required to be made in the light of the observations made therein. That is under challenge in this OA.
2. It is stated by the applicant as under:-
The applicant entered into the service on compassionate ground on 17.04.2001. She could marry only belatedly since she had to give her younger sister married off. The applicant is undergoing treatment for infertility. Her husband is working in Mavelikkara. Till April 2003, the applicant had been working as Sub Post Master (SPM), Kadambanad South in Pathanamthitta District. She was given a posting to Kunnathoor East by Annexure A2 order dated 26.04.2013. The normal tenure of a single handed SPM is 4 years and as such the applicant is entitled to continue at Kunnathoor till 2007. The applicant contends that Annexure A1 order is in clear violation of the transfer policy. The applicant was shifted merely to facilitate the transfer of Smt Sreelakshmi J. at S.No.5 from Sasthamcottah to Sooranadu. The reasoning given by the third respondent to reject the representation is unsustainable. It is contended that consideration was given to various other persons but the applicant was discriminated. Hence she has approached this Tribunal.
3. The claim is strongly resisted by the respondents contending as follows:
The residence of the applicant is at Charummoodu in Mavelikkara Division. Post Offices in and around Sasthamcottah are most convenient to the applicant and she worked in those post offices only. She requested for transfer to Sooranadu North S.O. (Sub Office) only. In the normal course, the tenure is 4 years. An official is liable to be transferred after completion of 4 years. As per Annexure A3 guidelines dated 31.01.2014, an official can be transfered from a post in administrative interest or on request of the official provided the official has completed at least one year service in the said post. Applicant has completed two years at Kunnathoor East Sub Office. Not only that, the applicant requested for a transfer to Sooranadu North as it was near to her residence. Hence the case of the applicant was considered during the rotational transfer of 2015. As per Annexure A3, officials who had worked as SPM/PA (Postal Assistant) in a single handed or double handed office should not be posted back to the same office even after a break. In other words, such officials shall have only one posting during their tenure service period in a single or double handed post office. Sasthancottah S.O. in Pathanamthitta Division is a Class One S.O., located in the Taluk Headquarters having a sanctioned strength of one SPM and three PAs. The third respondent was receiving so many complaints regarding deficiency in service in Sasthamcottah and hence it was decided to transfer the SPM of that office. As the applicant had expressed her desire to get a transfer from Kunnathoor East and also because the distance between her residence and Kunnathur East S.O., is 25 kms whereas the distance between her residence and Sasthamcottah is only 21.9 kms, she was posted as SPM, Sasthamcottah taking into account her experience. Representation made by the applicant was duly considered and orders were passed. Third respondent is competent to make orders in administrative interest. The tenure of 4 years does not impose any restriction that a person shall not be transferred either on request or in administrative interest. The applicant had put in 14 years of service in PA cadre and is residing comparatively nearer to Sasthamcottah. Her transfer to Sansthancottah is in the best interest of the administration as well as the applicant. The applicant cannot enter into the turf of the administration and suggest who should be posted where. The three seniors mentioned by the applicant were posted as PA in Head Post Offices due to the reasons stated therein. The transfer order is in tune with the guidelines issued by the 1 st respondent. The application lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.
4. A rejoinder has been filed refuting some of the averments in the reply statement.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for both sides. It is surprising to note that the applicant had earlier submitted a transfer request vide Annexure R1 dated 3.3.2015 that she be transferred to Sooranadu North which, according to her, is nearer to her residence than Kunnathoor East Post Office. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the applicant had made up her mind to go out of Kunnathoor post office. The main ground that has been now projected by the applicant is that she is undergoing treatment for infertility and so the transfer is to be intercepted. Even if it is assumed that she is undergoing such a treatment, is it that, it is available only in Kunnathoor? If that be so, how could it be believed that she would request for a transfer to move out of Kunnathoor, if the treatment for infertility (even if it is being undergone by the applicant) is available only at Kunnathoor? Therefore, the contention that because she has to undergo treatment for infertility, she has to be retained in Kunnathoor, is found to be a travesty of truth. It does not stand to rhyme, reason or common sense that a person will think of going out of Kunnathoor and opt for Sooranadu had she been undergoing treatment and that her movement from Kunnathoor would adversely affect her treatment. The contention raised by the applicant that the respondent should have been sensitive to the request made by the applicant for retaining her at Kunnathoor is found to be totally devoid of any merit.
6. The learned counsel for the applicant would submit that simply because the applicant had opted to go to Sooranadu, she should not have been transferred to Sasthamcottah. Sasthamcottah also falls within Pathanamthitta Division. The respondents would contend that the distance from her place of residence to Sasthamcottah is lesser than the distance from her residence to Kunnathoor post office and Sooranadu North. In fact, it is not the distance that has been projected by the applicant as a ground to oppose the transfer. In fact, it appears from the contentions raised by the applicant that she finds Sasthamcottah post office as inconvenient because the work load or nature of work there appears to be heavy. It is stated that the if she is posted at Sasthancottah, she has to deal with matters relating to RTI applications. The respondents would contend that the applicant has put in 14 years of service in PA cadre. The contention raised by the applicant that she is not trained in RTI cases, has been denied by the respondents. Since the applicant is working in the cadre of Postal Assistant, the plea of ignorance so put forward by her cannot be countenanced at all as a ground to oppose the transfer. It is the duty of every employee to learn such matters which fall within the duty attached to that particular cadre/post. Not only that, the Government introduces new initiatives like RTI from time to time, for which detailed OMs used to be issued. A simple reading will make any person familiar with these new initiatives. Further, such employees/postal assistants were also taught by providing induction and in-service training in such matters. Therefore, the grounds so raised by the applicant are totally untenable. If the plea raised by the applicant is accepted then similar pleas will be raised by others also to say that such posts should be avoided. Such a preposterous contention cannot be countenanced by a court of law.
7. It is also pertinent to note that a contention was vehemently advanced by the applicant projecting a fact that one T.Raju was given a transfer to his native place. It was specifically stated by the respondents that T.Raju is a physically handicapped person and so he had to be posted near his native place. But still the applicant wanted to contend that the respondents were sympathetic to T.Raju whereas they were not sympathetic to the applicant. Strange indeed is the contention so advanced. How could the applicant who is not a physically handicapped person compare with a person who is a physically handicapped person. The so called treatment for infertility did not preclude her from seeking a transfer to Sooranadu, as has already been stated earlier. Therefore, the contention that the respondents had shown leniency to T.Raju but it was not shown to her, depicts the immature understanding of things. One cannot be so irrational or unreasonable in making a plea that he/she ought to have been considered like a physically handicapped/disabled person. It is pointed out by the respondents that the applicant has dragged the names of so many persons who were covered by the transfer order as if some discrimination was shown to the applicant. The whole case projected by the applicant is that she should not have been transferred before completion of the tenure of 4 years but she feigns to be oblivious of the fact that she herself had opted to move out of Kunnathoor though her request was to be transferred to Sooranad North. The service details of the applicant are as shown below.
From To Designation
07.04.2001 20.05.2005 PA, Sasthamcottah SO
24.05.2005 07.01.2006 PA, Kadampanad South
09.11.2006 20.06.2011 SPM, Sooranad North
21.06.2011 03.06.2013 SPM, Kadampanad South
14.06.2013 Onwards SPM, Kunnathur East
8. It was specifically stated by the respondents that the applicant was transferred to Sasthamcottah taking into account her experience in the cadre. The concept of minimum tenure has no relevance since the applicant had sought a transfer of her choice to Sooranadu and also on the ground that the the impugned transfer was made in administrative interest and also taking into account the lesser distance the applicant had to travel when compared to the present station.
9. The respondents would contend that the transfer is an incidence of service. Transfer of a public servant made on administrative ground or in public interest should not be interfered with by the Tribunal unless there is something to show that it was actuated by malice or was in violation of statutory rules. See the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. H.N.Kirtania 1989 (3) SCC 445 and Mrs.Shilpy Bose and Ors Vs. State of Bihar and Ors. , AIR 1991 SC 532.
10. The scathing attack made by the applicant with the regard to orders of transfer issued to other applicants is found to be totally irrelevant since the question for consideration is whether any discrimination was shown to the applicant or whether there was violation of any statutory rules. It was specifically stated by the respondents that the transfer was necessitated in the interest of the administration. It is for the employer to decide when and where and at what point of time a public servant is to be transferred. See the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab Vs. Joginder Singh Dhatt., 1993 AIR SC weekly 3167.
11. The applicant had also questioned the transfer of one Sobhanakumari and Chandra Babu to say that she was not given equal treatment. The respondents have stated that Shobhanakumari is a native of Pathanamthitta and so her posting at Sasthamcottah would be very inconvenient considering the distance she had to travel from her residence and Sasthamcottah. Chandra Babu was a qualified accountant and hence he was posted to Adoor HO to manage the work of accounts. Therefore, that also cannot be questioned at all.
12. As stated earlier, the contention raised by her that she is not trained in RTI or some other field and therefore she should not be posted at a heavy station is found to be totally untenable and unmerited. The applicant who has an experience of 14 years cannot put forward such untenable ground to resist a transfer when it is seen to be made in the interest of the administration and for valid reason. There is absolutely no merit in the contention advanced by the applicant.
13. The learned counsel for the applicant now makes a fervent request that the next general transfer is to take place in April 2017. By then, the applicant would be completing 4 years tenure in which event the applicant may be entitled to submit her choice station. Even though the applicant has taken unreasonable and untenable grounds to question a valid transfer order, still, taking a lenient view in the matter, we are inclined to allow the applicant to be retained till the next general transfer. The applicant would be at liberty to opt her station of choice for transfer. Till then the applicant shall be allowed to be retained in the present station. The OA is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
(P. Gopinath) (N.K.Balakrishnan) Administrative Member Judicial Member aa.