Central Administrative Tribunal - Gauhati
Shri Kamal Ranjan Ghosh vs Indian Council Of Agricultural ... on 18 September, 2018
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
GUWAHATI BENCH
Original Application No. 041/00324/2018
Date of Order: This, the 18th day of September 2018
THE HON'BLE SMT. MANJULA DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER
Sri Kamal Ranjan Ghosh
S/o Lt. Karunamoy Ghosh
Resident of Fatikcherra, Kamaghat
P.O. - Kamalghat, P.S. Lefunga
Dist - West Tripura, Tripura
...Applicant
By Advocates: Mr. S. Sarma, Mrs. B. Devi & Ms. T. Kalita
-Versus-
1. Union of India
Represented by the Secretary
Department of Agriculture
Co-operation & Farmer's Welfare
Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road
Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi - 110001.
2. The Joint Director, Indian Council for
Agriculture Research, P.O. - Lembucherra
P.S. Lafunga, 799210
Dist - West Tripura, Tripura.
3. The Assistant Agriculture Officer
Indian Council for Agriculture Research
P.O. - Lembucherra, P.S. Lafunga, 799210
Dist - West Tripura, Tripura.
4. Dr. Lopamudra Sahoo
Scientist I/C, Cocotila Fish Firm
Indian Council for Agriculture Research
P.O. - Lembucherra, P.S. Lefunga
799210, Dist - West Tripura, Tripura.
...Respondents
2
O R D E R (ORAL)
MANJULA DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
Being aggrieved with the impugned transfer order dated 20.04.2018 so far the applicant is concerned as well as impugned rejection order dated 03.05.2018, the applicant has preferred the instant petition under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 seeking the following main reliefs:-
"8.1 To set aside and quash the impugned orders dated 20.04.2018, and 03.05.2018 and to allow him to continue as Technical Officer (T- 5 Animal Science) - the present place of posting.
8.2 To release the arrear salary of the applicant w.e.f. July 2018 till date and to pay him interest @ 21% on the delayed settlement of his dues.
8.2 To grant all the consequential service benefits for which the applicant is entitled to under the facts and circumstances of the case."
2. Mr. S. Sarma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that applicant is presently holding the post of Technical Officer, (T-5 Animal Science), ICAR, Lembucherra, Tripura. According to Mr. Sarma, applicant is by now 59 years of age and only 7 months of service left in his 3 service career and his date of retirement as per the office record is 31.07.2019. However, at the feg end of service career, he has been sought to be transferred to Cocotelia, in the district of West Tripura as Firm Manager Cocotelia Fish Farm which is a remote place vide impugned order dated 20.04.2018.
3. Mr. Sarma further submits that the respondents by issuing the impugned order dated 20.04.2018 has posted him in a completely different stream whereas there is no requirement of a technical personal of Poultry Science. The impugned order of transfer has been issued as a measure of punishment only to harass him. The said impugned order has not been issued in the in the interest of public service. No public purpose would be served as the applicant does not have the expertise in the subject of Fish Farming. The applicant never received any training course in the field of Fish Farming.
4. Mr. Sarma further submits that against the impugned transfer order dated 20.04.2018, the applicant submitted a representation dated 23.04.2018 before the respondent No. 2 with a request to cancel the order of his transfer. Said 4 representation of the applicant has been rejected by the respondent No. 3 vide communication dated 03.05.2018.
5. According to Mr. Sarma, the law having been settled by the court of law relating to issuance of the orders of transfer at the feg end of one's service career. Hence the impugned orders dated 20.04.2018 so far the applicant is concerned as well as rejection order dated 03.05.2018 are not in conformity with the said settled law and same are liable to be set aside and quashed.
6. Mr. Sarma further submits that the applicant is having less than 7 months of service left out and want to settle his peaceful retirement life at his home town Guwahati. As such, he is entitled to get the benefit as extended by the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court of Agartala in the case of Narayan Choudhury Vs. State of Tripura & Ors. reported in 2000 (1) GLR 519 as well as Union of India Vs. Dr. Umesh Kumar Mishra WA No. (SH) 17/12.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant. Perused the pleadings and the documents relied upon. No doubt, the department is the best suited to judge as to the existence of exigencies of such transfer who should be 5 transferred where. Same time, it should not be given bye that the power of judicial review could very well be exercised by a court of law if such transfer indicated hardship factor in compliance with such a transfer order. Moreover, it is the policy of the Govt. of India that in case of an officer due to superannuation, posting to station of choice shall be given due weightage. There is an objective based on consideration of welfare behind such provision in the transfer policy as it would enable a person about to retire after a long and devoted service to make arrangements for settling down thereafter with her family, acquire a house if not already done and to make necessary arrangement for her superannuated life. In Union of India Vs. Dr. Umesh Kumar Mishra WA No. (SH) 17/12, Hon'ble Gauhati High Court has held that - "Fairness requires that if a policy has been laid down, the same may be deviated from only if there is any reason to do so. If no reason is forthcoming, the exercise of power of transfer in violation of a laid down policy may be held to be arbitrary."
8. In the present case, I have noted that, applicant will retire in July 2019. Only about 7 months left of his service. In Narayan Choudhury Vs. State of Tripura & Ors. WP(C) No. 239/1999 rendered in (2000) 1 GLR 519 where the Hon'ble 6 Gauhati High Court of Agartala Bench has held that - "The petitioner is retiring towards the end of 2000 and he has to serve hardly one and half years, no practical purpose will be served by asking the writ petitioner to proceed to his place of posting at Gomit just for a period of 5/6 months".
The present case is squarely covered with the above case of Narayan Choudhury Vs. State of Tripura (supra).
9. By taking into consideration the entire conspectus of the case as well as the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court mentioned above as well as without issuing notice, I feel it deem fit and proper to issue a direction upon the respondents to consider the case of the applicant in view of the foregoing discussion.
10. Accordingly, I direct the respondents to allow the applicant to continue him as Technical Officer (T-5 Animal Science), ICAR, Lembucherra, Tripura till his retirement.
Consequently impugned office order No. RC/TC/G/AAO/2016/3362 dated 20.04.2018 so far the applicant is concerned, is quashed and set aside.
7
11. With the above observations and directions, the O.A. stands disposed of accordingly at the admission stage itself. No order as to costs.
(MANJULA DAS) MEMBER (J) PB