Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Union Of India And Ors vs Shri Girish Kumar Padonia Ors on 26 September, 2012
Author: Bela M. Trivedi
Bench: Bela M. Trivedi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR.
J U D G M E N T
DB CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 11838/2012.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. - PETITIONERS
Vs.
GIRISH KUMAR PADONIA & ORS. - RESPONDENTS
Date of Judgment: 26th September, 2012.
PRESENT
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain-I.
Hon'ble Ms. Justice Bela M. Trivedi.
Mr. Aslam Khan for the petitioners.
Mr. C.B. Sharma for the respondents.
(PER HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE BELA TRIVEDI J.)
1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners-original respondents under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 8.5.12 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in Original Application No. 183/11 whereby the Tribunal has quashed and set aside the order dated 15.4.11 passed by the petitioners, and further directed the petitioners to allow the respondent No.1-original applicant to continue him in Kota Division and give effect to the promotion order dated 16.12.10 and to post him as Loco Pilot (Goods) after the completion of his training.
2. In the instant case, it appears that the respondent No.1-original applicant was working as Asstt. Loco Pilot at Kota Division, when he had made a request for mutual transfer with the respondent No.2-original respondent No.4 who was working as Asstt. Loco Pilot, Western Railway, Ahmedabad in November, 2007. The said request for mutual transfer remained pending for about more than 3 years and in the meantime the respondent No.1 was promoted to the post of Loco Pilot (Goods) vide the order dated 16.12.10. The respondent No.1 therefore on 17.12.10 made a request to the petitioners that he was no longer interested in mutual transfer and, therefore his said request be treated as cancelled. However, the petitioners ignoring the said request of the respondent No.1 allowed the mutual transfer with the respondent No.2 vide the order dated 15.4.11. The respondent No.1 therefore challenged the said order before the Tribunal and prayed for setting aside the said order and for direction to accept the request of the respondent No.1 to withdraw his request for mutual transfer, with consequential benefits. The said application came to be allowed by the Tribunal vide the impugned order, against which the present petition has been preferred by the petitioners.
3. It has been sought to be submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Aslam Khan for the petitioners that as per the letter/circular dated 31.4.06 of the Director (Estt.) Railway Board, the compliance of mutual transfer request was required to be strictly adhered to by the concerned employees and that the request for backtracking of mutual transfer was not permissible. According to Mr. Aslam Khan for the petitioners, the Tribunal had committed an error in not taking into consideration the said letter/circular. He also submitted that the respondent No.2 has already joined at Kota Division and there would be lot of administrative inconvenience if the order of Tribunal is not set aside.
4. However, the learned counsel Mr. C.B. Sharma for the respondent No.1 has submitted that the request for mutual transfer was made by the respondent No.1 in November, 2007 and the order for mutual transfer was made by the petitioners on 15.4.11, when in the meantime the respondent No.1 had already requested the petitioners vide the letter dated 17.12.10 to cancel his request for mutual transfer, on he having been promoted as Loco Pilot. According to him the Tribunal having rightly considered the legal and factual aspect of the matter, this court should not interfere with the said order.
5. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and to the documents on record, more particularly, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, it clearly transpires that taking recourse to the request made by the respondent No.1 for mutual transfer with the respondent No.2 in November, 2007, the petitioners had sought to transfer the respondent No.1 vide the order dated 15.4.11, though the respondent No.1 had already intimated vide the letter dated 17.12.10 that he was no longer interested in mutual transfer and his request for mutual transfer be treated as cancelled. It is also pertinent to note that when the request for mutual transfer was made by the respondent No.1 in November, 2007, he and the respondent No.2 both were Asstt. Loco Pilot, whereas on the date of passing of the order on 15.4.11, the applicant had already been promoted to the post of Loco Pilot whereas the respondent No.2 was still Asstt. Loco Pilot. It cannot be gainsaid that the mutual transfer could be effected only if both the employees, who had sought mutual transfers were working on the same or equivalent post. The order dated 15.4.11 having been passed after the respondent No.1 had become Loco Pilot, qua the respondent No.2 who was still Asstt. Loco Pilot, appears to be ex-facie illegal.
6. Though it was sought to be submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in view of the letter/circular dated 21.4.06, the respondent No.1 could not have backtracked from his request for mutual transfer, the said submission cannot be accepted, for the simple reason that if the petitioners did not want the employees to backtrack from their request for mutual transfer, it is expected from the petitioners to consider the request of the employees for mutual transfer within reasonable period of time and not after about more than three years, when the position of the employee has already been changed in the intervening period. The Tribunal has rightly considered the facts and circumstances of the case and set aside the impugned order dated 15.4.11 passed by the petitioners, and left it open to the petitioners to take decision for the respondent No.2, who has already joined at Kota Division. There being no illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, the petition deserves to be dismissed.
7. In that view of the matter, there being no substance in the present petition, the same is dismissed.
(BELA M. TRIVEDI)J.(NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN-I)J. MRG.
All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.
M.R. Gidwani PS-cum-J