Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

K.A.Harilal vs Union Of India on 12 March, 2012

Author: C.T.Ravikumar

Bench: Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, C.T.Ravikumar

       

  

  

 
 
                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                          PRESENT:

     THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
                                                &
                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR

        MONDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH 2012/22ND PHALGUNA 1933

                                OP (CAT).No. 690 of 2012 (Z)
                                    ----------------------------
   OA.82/2012 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH
                                                           .....

    PETITIONER(S):
    -------------------------

       K.A.HARILAL, AGED 48 YEARS,
       S/O.K.N.APPU, JUNIOR ENGINEER (QUANTITY
       SURVEY & CONTRACTS) GARRISON ENGINEER                        `
       ELECTRICAL/MECHANICAL (NAVAL WORKS) KOCHI,
       RESIDING AT CHANDRAKANTHAM, KANJIRAMATTOM.P.O.
       ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682 315.

       BY ADV. SRI.R.SREERAJ

    RESPONDENT(S):
    ---------------------------

    1. UNION OF INDIA,
        REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,
        MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, NEW DELHI.

    2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER,
        MILITARY ENGINEER SERVICES, SOUTHERN COMMAND, PUNE.

    3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (NAVAL WORKS)
        MILITARY ENGINEER SERVICES, NAVAL BASE, KOCHI-4.

       BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASG OF INDIA


     THIS OP (CAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12-03-2012,
     THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

Kss

OP(CAT) NO.690/2012 Z


                                  APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS & ANNEXURES:


P1:   COPY OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.82/12 ON THE FILE OF THE
      HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH
      ALONG WITH ITS ANNEXURE.

ANNEX.A1:   COPY OF THE PO NO.116/2010 (13260/11/CML-10/JE (QS&C) /131/
            EIB (S)/Al (A) DTD. 8 NOV 2010 ISSUED ON BEHALF OF THE 2ND
            RESPONDENT.

ANNEX.A2:   COPY OF THE 'REASONED SPEAKING ORDER' NO.13260/11/CML-10/
           JE (QS&C) /23/EIB (S)/Al (A) DTD. 21 JAN 12 ISSUED ON BEHALF OF
            THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

ANNEX.A3:   COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTIONS OF THE POLICY GUIDELINES
            DTD. 27 AUG 2007 ISSUED BY THE E-IN-C'S BRANCH.

ANNEX.A4:   COPY OF REPRESENTATION DTD. 19/11/2010 SUBMITTED BY THE
            APPLICANT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

ANNEX.A5:   COPY OF THE LETTER NO.132601/11/CML-10/JE (QS&C)/258/E1B(S)/
            A1(A) DTD. 21/02/2011 ADDRESSED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

ANNEX.A6:   COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER DTD. 22/07/11 IN O.A.268/11 ON THE
            FILE OF THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL.

ANNEX.A7:   COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 10/08/11 SUBMITTED BY THE
            APPLICANT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

ANNEX.A7(A): COPY OF THE 'SPEAKING ORDER'NO.132601/11/CML-10/JE(QS&C)/
            11/EIB (S)/A1(A) DTD. 25 OCT.11.

ANNEX.A8:   COPY OF THE REJOINDER FILED BY THE APPLICANT IN
            O.A.947/11.

ANNEX.A9:   COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER DTD. 28/11/2011 IN O.A.947/11 ON THE
            FILE OF THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL.


Kss                                                              ..2/-

                                    ..2....

OP(CAT) NO.690/2012 Z


ANNEX.A10: COPY OF THE MOVEMENT ORDER DTD. 28/01/2012 ISSUED BY
           THE GARRISON ENGINEER E/M (N/W) KOCHI - 4.

P2:        COPY OF THE COUNSEL STATEMENT FILED BY THE
           RESPONDENTS IN O.A.82/12 ALONG WITH ITS ANNEXURE.

ANNEX.R1:  COPY OF THE CHART CONTAINING THE DETAILS OF THE
           PERSONNEL.

P3:        COPY OF THE REJOINDER FILED BY THE PETITIONER/APPLICANT
           IN O.A.82/12 ALONG WITH ITS ANNEXURE.

ANNEX.A11: COPY OF THE LETTER 136645/LC DTD. 16 NOV 2011 SIGNED BY THE
           DEPUTY DIRECTOR (LEGAL) ON BEHALF OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

P4:        COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 15/02/2012 IN O.A.82/12 ON THE FILE
           OF THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
           ERNAKULAM BENCH.

P5:        COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 15/2/12 SUBMITTED BY
           THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.


RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:

ANNEX.R2(A):      COPY OF THE MOVEMENT ORDER BEARING NO.1003/195/EIB
                  DTD. 23/02/2012.

ANNEX.R2(B):      COPY OF THE LETTER NO.1080/17/EIC DTD. 03/03/2011.

ANNEX.R2(C):      COPY OF THE LIST SHOWING HOLDING OF JE (QS&C) IN
                  KOCHI COMPLEX.


                                                      /TRUE COPY/


                                                      P.S.TO JUDGE
Kss



           Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan

                        &

                C.T.Ravikumar, JJ.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = OP(CAT).No.690 of 2012 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 12th day of March, 2012 Judgment Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.

1.The petitioner, a Junior Engineer(QS & C) was among those who are transferred to different places. It appears that the said transfer order was carried to the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.268 of 2011. The establishment was directed to reconsider certain aspects. Thereafter, O.A.No.947 of 2011 also led to a reconsideration at the hands of the establishment. All the other officers, except the petitioner, covered by the order of transfer issued by the establishment have by now joined duty in the respective stations to which they are transferred.

OP(CAT).690/12 -: 2 :-

2.Scanning the materials placed before the Tribunal, it had come to the clear conclusion in paragraph 7 of the impugned Ext.P4 order that though the Tribunal had felt earlier that there could be too many deficiencies even lower than CML in which event, there is no question of transferring out any one from here, the respondents(establishment) have properly calculated the total strength in Kochi Region and held that the applicant has to move.

3.With the aforesaid factual matrix as noticed by the Tribunal, it relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Union of India v. S.I.Abbas[(1993) 4 SCC 357] to rightly note that there is no indefeasible legal right to insist that one should not be transferred out from a station. The Tribunal found no material to hold that the order of transfer is vitiated by malafides. Under such circumstances, we find no jurisdictional error or legal infirmity in the order warranting our visitorial exercise in terms of Article 226/227 of the Constitution.

OP(CAT).690/12 -: 3 :-

4.It is submitted that some representation of the petitioner is pending. We clarify that we have not expressed anything on the merits of such request.

The Original Petition fails. The same is accordingly dismissed.

Sd/-

Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge.

Sd/-

C.T.Ravikumar, Judge.

Sha/120312