Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
J Ajay Kumar vs M/O Home Affairs on 3 October, 2018
IN THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL".
HYDERABAD BENCH : HYDERABAD
Original Application No.814/2016
Date of CAV. : 25.07.2018
Between :
j.Ajay Kumar, S/o OrJ.Narayana Murthy,
Aged about 48 years,
Oce : inspector General of Police,
SCRB, Crime Investigation Department,
Telangana State, Hyderabad.
And
1. Union of India, rep. by
Ministry of Home Affairs,
North Black, New Delhi.
2, The Secretary,
Department of Personnel and Training,
Ministry of Personnel,
Public Grievances & Pensions,
New Delhi.
3, The Government of Telangana State,
Rep. by its Chief Secretary,
Hyderabad, Telangana State.
4. The Government of Andhra Pradesh,
Rep. by its Chief Secretary, Hyderabad. --
5. The Chief Secretary,
Government of Assam,
Guwehati, Assam State.
§. The Director General of Police,
State of Telangana, Saifabad, Hyderabad.
{of2l
Date of Order: S~ 10.2018
. Applicant
.. Respondents
. MrDraA.Raghu Kumar, Advocate
MrVVinod Kumar, $n CGSC
MrP Ravinder Reddy, S.C. For State of Telangana
Mr.&.Peddanna, §.C. For State of AP.
CORAM:
Hon'ble Mrdustice R.Kantha Rao eee Member {judl.}
Hon'ble Mr. 8.V Sudhakar re Member(Admn.)
ORDER
{ As per Hon'ble Mrdustice R.Kantha Rao, Member {iudl.) } The brief facts of the case which are relevant for considering the relief prayed for in the OA may be stated as follows :
The applicant belongs to the IPS Cadre of 1997 Batch of Assam- Meghalaya Cadre. He submits that while he was working in Assam suffered fram severe heart attack in 2007. He was diagnosed suffering from Coronary Artery disease with Inferior Wall Mi Past STK with Basal Aneurysm and Monomorphic Ventricular Tachycardia. He underwent treatment for the said disease. Even subsequent to the treatment he had several episodes of VT and was admitted in hospital and stabilized. On 28.09.2010 he had sustained VT with multiple shocks from ICD and managed. On 21.07.2013 he had VT Storn with multiple shacks including cardiac arrest and resuscitated. He underwent RF Ablation for the second time on 28.08.2013. All together he had more than 50 episodes of Ventricular Tachyardia (VT). Under these circumstances with a history of disease \coeneerr ec 2efii --_ fot} wet ones he was advised by the medical experts to be under close medical supervision of | Cardiac Electro Physiologist, vide the Care Hospital Limited advisory dated 10.12.2013. He was further advised that he needs to be claser to the station where he can have such treatment facilities and frequent interrogation of his device ICD for Arrhythmic Episodes. He was further advised to avoid strenuous activities and to come for frequent medical checkup. He was on deputation to the Government of Andhra Pradesh initially for four years and after the formation of the new State of Telangana he was allotted to Government of Telangana. His total tenure period of deputation of 05 years ended on 09.08.2014. He was continued to be on deputation in the State of Telangana tl the date of fling of the OA.
2. The applicant submitted a representation dated 20.12.2013 seeking NOC for inter Cadre Transfer under Rule 5(2} of Indian Police Service (Cadre} Rules 1954 on the ground of "Extreme Hardship" along with the medical advice of the Care Hospital, Hyderabad dated 10.12.2013.
3. While the matter stood thus, the Government of india considered his representation and he was recommended for medical examination by Standing Medical Board of Government of india to assess the medical condition of chronic heart related problems vide Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi letter No.1-11014/3/2014-IPS AV dated 05.02.2014. The Medical Board examined and recommended that the condition of the officer mandates that he 3 of 2] [eteepot has to be close to advanced Cardio facilities and also made a note that he is being.
treated under a specialized cardio electro physiologist at Hyderabad.
4, The Government of India on receipt of the repart of the Standing Medical Board finding grounds of transfer on extreme hardship as genuine sought NOC from Assam Government for relieving the applicant and NOC from Telangana Government for acceptance to process the application. While the Government of Assam conveyed NOC for the Cadre transfer on health grounds, the Government of Telangana even after lapse of 2 years did not act on the request of Government af india for issuance of NOC. The policy relating to change of Cadre of All India Service Officers ~ Policy (2004) lays down that the Inter Cadre Transfers are also to be permitted on the grounds of extreme hardship in the rarest of cases. As per the policy the Inter Cadre Transfer shall not be permitted to the Hore State Officers and thus the applicant is ineligible for Andhra Pradesh Cadre as he belongs to Andhra Pradesh. in spite of repeated representations by the applicant, the Government of Telangana did not decide on the NOC matter even after lapse of two years putting the applicant to considerable distress because of the uncertainty in Ais status in the cadre, much against the princigles of natural justice. He was also denied for pramotion for a full one year. While sa, the respondents issued the impugned proceedings in GORT No.i523 General Administration (5C.8) Department dated 06.07.2016 communicated to the applicant on 02.08.2016 directing the 6" respondent to take necessary action for 4of2i relief of the MoS from the State of Telangana without reference to the decis n.01 the pending case of the applicant for No Objection Certificate for Inter Cadre Transfer under Rule 5(2} of Indian Police Service (Cadre} Rules, 1954 on the ground of extreme hardship and as requested by the Ministry of Home Affairs, the cadre controlling authority of 1PS vide their letter dated 10.07.2014 for change of Cadre fromm Assam-Meghalaya Cadre to State of Telangana in terms of the change of Cadre of All India Service Officers Policy (2004) in terms of Rule 5 (2) of the IAS Cadre Rules 1954 and Analogous Rules in the IPS (Cadre) Rules, 1954 and FS.
{Cadre} Rules, 1956.
5. Since the Government of Telangana without taking a decision of issuing NOC to the applicant for change of Cadre fram Assam-Meghalaya to State of Telangana and proposed to relieve the applicant on the ground of completion of the tenure without examining the case of the applicant in proper perspective and also ignoring the recommendations of Ministry of Horne Affairs the applicant filed the present OA. According to the applicant even the Telangana State had objection, it should have been conveyed the same to the Ministry of Home Affairs which would have chosen some alternative State where medical facilities and conditions are better for the officer to function especially when the Standing Central Government Medical Board opined that the medical condition of the applicant mandates that he has to be close to super specialty hospitals which are not there in Assam.
excaz.
Sofel 06.07. 2016 communicated to the applicant on 02.08.2016 directing the 6° respondent to take necessary action for relief of the MoS fromm the State of Telangana without taking reference to the decision on pending case of the applicant for No Objection Certificate (NOC) for Inter Cadre Transfer as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of india and also in violation of principles of natural justice and consequently declare that the applicant is entitled for NOC for the State of Telangana and change of Cadre from Assam-Merhalaya to Telangana State from the Central Government and to pass necessary orders which this Tribunal may deem fit and proper having regard te the circumstances of the case.
7. The Tribunal passed an interim order dated 04.08.2016 suspending the operation and execution of the impugned order dated 06.07.2016 till the next date of hearing. Subsequently on 26.08.2016 the interim order was extended unth further orders.
&, in the reply statement the 1° respondent ~ Union of India contended inter alia as follows :
inter cadre deputation to an AIS Officer is granted with the condition that H# he does not handover charge at the end of the approved period of Bofli Ae 2 Se ier
6. The applicant therefore filed the present OA to declare the.
ceedings in GORT No.1523 General Administration (SC.B}) Department dated : deputation he/she will be immediately flable to disciplinary action and bre. k service for the period beyond the approved date. The deputationist has the responsibility to relinquish charge and get himself/herself relieved on the last day.
of his/her deputation if no order extending his/her deputation has been issued by the concerned Cadre Cantrolling Authority because of the fact that extension in.
deputation is neither automatic nor should it be presumed. In cases where an officer has completed five years of Inter Cadre Deputation and still continuing on inter Cadre Deputation, adverse notice is taken at the time of empanelment and promotion of the officer.
9. The applicant joined the unified State of Andhra Pradesh on 10.08.2009 on inter cadre deputation for a period of three years. Further before expiry of the initial period of three years tenure, he requested for extension in period of inter cadre deputation for an another period of two years on the ground of medical hardship to his parents. The officer was granted extension for anather period of two years (ce. upte allowable period of five years, in terrns of the extant provisions of the guidelines issued by the Department of Personnel & Training. After the bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh between the successor States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, the applicant has continued in Telangana cadre. The State Government of Telangana vide order dated 02.08.2016 directed the Director General of Police to take necessary action to relieve the applicant to enable him to join his parent cadre. While being on Inter re leu Zt Cadre Deputation to the unified State of Andhra Pradesh the officer made a. representation ta the Ministry of Home Affairs seeking Inter Cadre Transfer from | # ésam ~ Meghalaya to Andhra Pradesh on medical grounds. The representation of the applicant was examined in the light of applicable rules and guidelines relating to Inter Cadre Transfer. He was referred to the Standing Medical Board of Government of India and the Board on examining the applicant, expressed the apinion that the cardiac condition of the applicant mandates that he be posted at a place where facility of advance cardiology hospital is available with availability of cardiac Electro physiologist for regular interrogation of ICD and emergency Arrhythmia management. The Board has further noted that the patient is under tare of an electro ohysiglogist at Nyderabad who knows about the details of the case and this fact may be taken into account by the Ministry. The applicant has been advised to avoid strenuous physical activity. Basing on the opinion given. by the Medical Board the Ministry of Home Affairs sought comments from the State Governments of Telangana, Tamil Nadu and Karnataka as to whether they would agree to accept the applicant to their cadre on Inter Cadre Transfer on the grounds of medical hardship. But nane of the State Governments have conveyed thelr comments to accept the applicant to their cadre on Inter Cadre Transfer. As per Rule (2) of Indian Police Service (Cadre} Rules, 1954 the Central Gavernment may with the concurrence of the State Governments transfer a cadre officer from one cadre to another. In this case no cadre has agreed to accept the applicant, therefore his request for transfer is not tenable. Moreover, the Medical Board has Saft. ~ [etd _ not found the medical hardship of the officer due to the climate of the cadr bome on. Therefore the case does not fall under the category of hardships for the purpose of effecting inter Cadre Transfer in terms of the DOP&T guidelines dated 04.11.2008.
10. The 3° respondent in its reply statement contended that the. applicant vide his letter dated ..02.2015 requested the 3° respondent te issue NOc for his Inter Cadre Transfer from Assam to Telangana State. As the Member. of Service is serving the State of Telangana, the applicant had not opted to forward his application from Telangana to Ministry of Home Affairs for considering:
his inter Cadre Transfer to Telangana, whereas in his previous application dated 20,12.2013 in the composite State of Andhra Pradesh has initiated from him- through the Director General of Police AP and State Government as through proper channel and the Government forwarded the same to the Ministry of Home Affairs and the reply from the Ministry of Home Affairs was awaited for taking» necessary action when the former Andhra Pradesh State got bifureated in to Telangana and residuary Andhra Pradesh wef. 02.06.2014,
11. The three years deputation tenure of the applicant was completed by 09.08.2012 in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The Ministry of Home Affairs vide their letter dated 22.05.2012 has conveyed their approval of the competent authority for the extension of the Inter Cadre Deputation of the applicant for a i "yy A BoP ie, period of two years beyond 09.08.2012. Accordingly the deputation tenure of the. yplicant has been completed by 09.08.2014 under Rule 6 (1) of the IPS (Cadre) oo ules, 1954. After bifurcation of the composite State of Andhra Pradesh the : applicant who was on deputation was transferred to the State of Telangana. Consequent to the creation of the new State of Telangana while his relief i repatriation of the applicant was under consideration, the representation of the applicant has been received by the Government of Telangana wherein he has. requested for continuation of the period of deputation beyond the tenure. the Government of Telangana received a letter fram the Department of Personne! and Training, New Oelhi dated 27.06.2016, according to which & the State Government, a borrowing organization wishes to retain an officer beyond five years, they may extend the tenure of deputation covered under consolidated guidelines, where absolutely necessary in public interest, upto a period nor excerding seven years at a stretch and basing on the said instructions the applicant was continued in the Government of Telangana. However, the applicant as per his affidavit also has completed seven years of Inter Cadre Deputation on the ground of Hiness of his parents. His case pertains to the medical hardship for which he has avaled seven years at a stretch on Inter Cadre Deputation under Rule 6 (1) of IPS (Cadre) Rules, 1954 read with guidelines issued by the Gepartment of Personnel and Training, Government of India.
Hof 2]
12. The applicant has submitted an application to the State Government for sanction of Extra Ordinary Leave for a period of one year for his higher studies:
at U.S.A. In terms of AIS (Leave) Rules, 1955, the applicant has been sanctioned E.O.L. for one year wef. 24.08.2016 to 23.08.2017 vide GORT No.i905 dated --
27.08.2016.
43. The decision on Inter Cadre Transfer is under the damain of Government of India as per Rule 5 (2) of the IPS. (Cadre} Rules. Communication is yet to be received fram the Government of India on the representation of the.
applicant for Inter Cadre Transfer fram Assam ~ Meghalaya to Telangana Cadre.
Since the applicant has completed seven years period of deputation at a stretch, he is Hable to be relleved from the State of Telangana on or before 10.08.2016. After passing of the interim order dated 04.08.2016 by the Tribunal the applicant submitted an application for grant of £.0.L. for one year for his higher studies at U.S.A. for pursuing Executive Masters in Public Administration, Columbia- University. Taking into account the fact that the applicant has not been relieved from the Cadre by virtue of the orders of the Tribunal and in view of the-
entitlement of the leave facility pravided to the All India Service Officers under AIS {Leave) Rules, 1955 the application has been considered and the applicant has. been granted £.0.L. for one year wet 24.08.2016 as requested by the MoS cil 23.08.2017. Thus according to the 3° respondent as the applicant has overstayed his deputation period he is under the duty to get himself relieved from the cadre va aye ; F aaelenee Tiara: [& :
Be ~. Of Telangana State and join his parent cadre.
DA.
i5. In the rejoinder filed by the applicant he submitted the following facts :
The applicant informed the Government of Telangana and also the Central Government on number of occasions that the tenure of deputation is coming to a close which is a matter of record. The impugned order contained In GORT No.1523 General Administration ($C.B} Department dated 06.07.2016 it was" mentioned that consequent to the creation of new State of Telangana the Sdember of Service will be continued in the State of Telangana cadre and in view of the cadre strength management and cadre allocation amang the two States, the services of the applicant could not be relieved immediately after completion of deputation period. Thus it is very much on record that there was a positive action on the part of State of Telangana in retaining the services of the applicant in view of the creation of new State of Telangana and in view of the cadre strength management and cadre allocation among the two states. The cadre transfer of the applicant was considered in 2014 itself and by June 2014 the cadre transfer process was at the final stage and only NOC is pending with the State of Telangana. in those circumstances it would impertinent for the applicant to press for his own relief from cadre when he is being considered for a permanent 2 of 2] i4. Contending as above the respondents 1 and 3 sought to dismiss the a transfer especially when the medical condition is such that his relief arid reture to | his parent cadre of Assam is jeopardy to ife and by that me the medical board.
also opined that the serious condition of the applicant mandates that he be near | to a super specialty hospitel specialized in electro cardiology because of his. precarious condition. As regards the contention of the 3° respondent that in view . of the completion of maximum tenure of five years and there was no further:
extension from the 1° respondent, the State Government has decided to relieve _ the applicant through the impugned order dated 06.07.2016. it is submitted by, the applicant that the impugned order does not indicate any action on the part of . | the 3" respondent as to what was the decision taken by the 3°° respondent with regard to the Inter Cadre Transfer of the applicant. It is further submitted that:
the impugned order is silent in respect of the processing of the case of the apolicant for NOC and the 3° respondent has also mot come with any. documentary evidence as to the reasons/ grounds for rejecting the NOC to the | app licant.
16. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant would contend that as the process of Inter Cadre Transfer of the applicant was at the final stage, the applicant did not get himself relieved from the State of Telangana as it would affect his chances of being considered for the State of Telangana as also more _ particularly on account of the interim order passed by the Tribunal suspending the order dated 06.07.2016 passed by the 6" respondent. The learned counsel.
tefl li te eb
--i would further submit that as there was no specific rejection order either from the Government of india or from the State of Telangana in regard to the Inter Cadre anster of the applicant, the applicant in view of his medical condition continued | to stay In the deputation post. According to the learned counsel as there was no specific rejection order in writing in respect of his Inter Cadre Transfer, the applicant is entitled to continue in the deputation post and he is entitled for the nay and allowances during the said period.
17. On the other hand the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents contended that after the expiry of the deputation period of five years it is obligatory on the part of the applicant to get himself relieved of the deputation post and join his parent cadre. According to the learned standing counsel overstaying the deputation period by the applicant notwithstanding the fact af communication of the final decision on Inter Cadre Transfer to the applicant is in violation of rules and attracts disciplinary action: against the applicant. Therefore the learned counsel would contend that the only aptian of the applicant having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case is to join his parent cadre without any delay.
18. it is true, in the instant case the applicant continued in the deputation post for a period of more than seven years, extension of two years period was granted to him, he was further continued in the said post for @ period gre ee idof 2 Wy hotibnttes SO . of two more years in the said post and even till date. In this context it requires to ; | be mentioned that the interim order passed by the Tribunal suspending the order impugned in the petition has not so far been vacated. The 3° respondent also.
mentioned in its reply affidavit that the Government of India, Department of.
Parsonnel and Training in their letter dated 27.06.2016 clarified that porrowing organization wants an officer to be retained beyond five years they may extend.
the period under the consolidated guidelines where it is absolutely necessary in the public interest upto a period not exceeding seven years at a stretch. However, the contention of the 3" respondent is that as on date even the seven years period at a stretch has heen completed and therefore it is obligatory on the part of the applicant to get himself relieved and join in his parent cadre. As to:
this, it is the version of the applicant that since his request for Inter Cadre transfer is under consideration by the Government of India, he js entitled to continue in 'the present niace. In any event since the continuance of the applicant in the . deputation post is in accordance with the interim order passed by the Tribunal the | continuance as such cannot be said to be iiegal. No communication In writing has. been sent to the applicant by the Government of Telangana that it fs not
- agreeable to take the applicant to the Telangana cadre. Except stating in their reply affidavit that none of the States agreed fo receive the applicant to their' _ cadre, the Ministry of Home Affairs also has not sent any communication to the applicant stating that his request for inter Cadre Transfer has been rejected.
i9. The memorandum dated 13.11.2017 Issued by the General Administration {Spl.B) Department of the Government of Telangana is required to "be mentioned in this cormext, itis as follows :-
"in view af the joining repart subrnitted by Sri JAfay Kurnar, IPS (RROAM:1997) on completion af one year extraordinary leave in the reference 9" cited, the Director General of Police, Hyderabad is requested to furnish the proposal for the conditional posting ta Sri iAjay Kumar, iPS (RR:AM?1997}), subject ta final outcorne in OA. No.021/00814/2016 of the Hon'ble CAT, Hyderabad on repatriation af the Member of Service."
20. Fram the memorandum it is obvious that the Government of Jelangana took a conscious decision ta issue orders of pasting to the applicant. subject te final outcome of the OA. The memo was issued by the Government of Telangana in response to the joining report submitted by the applicant. Even though the Government of Telangana took a decision to issue conditional posting to the applicant subject to the outcame of the main OA, the Director General af Police - 6" respondent herein sought to give an interpretation that by the time of issuing orders by the Tribunal, the applicant was already relleved from the state Cadre and therefore the order of the CAT. stands infructuous. With such an interpretation the Director General of Police issued memorandum dated 20.0L.2018. From the proceedings of the General Administration (Spi.8} 1621 le Etter v) Department, Government of Telangana dated 13.11.2017 if is clear that the Government of Telangana intended to issue the conditional posting to the applicant subject to the final outcome of the OA. The same has been specifically mentioned in the memorandum dated 13.11.2017. Therefore, the memo issued 'by the Director General of Police is contrary to the conscious decision taken by the Government of Telangana.
21. The 3° respondent made a mention in their reply statement. about the procedure relating to Inter Cadre Transfer and Inter Cadre Deputation which are governed by the Indian Police Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954. According to. the procedure, in case of any disagreement by a State to receive the Member of Service on inter Cadre Transfer the matter shall be decided by the Central. Government and the State Government or State Governments cancerned shall | give effect to the decision of the Central Government. Therefore, even if the Government of Telangana expresses is disagreement to take the applicant on Inter Cadre Transfer, still the Central Government can enforce the Inter Cadre. Transfer on the 3° respondent, if it is so desires. in the instant case the.
"Government af Telangana states that as the deputation period of the applicant was over; he has to get himself relieved and join the parent cadre, whereas the Government af India states that none of the States whom they consulted did nat agree to take the applicant on Inter Cadre Transfer. But neither the Government:
of india nor the Government of Telangana have passed any reasoned arders of 2] [eee ~ communicating their disagreement or rejection of the request of the applicant ak. 7 the case may be giving cogent reasons. The 1" respondent itself referred the applicant to the Standing Medical Board, the Standing Medical Board which.
examined the applicant, noticed the acute heart ailment of the applicant, recommended that the condition of the applicant mandates that he is close to advanced cardiac facilities and also made a note that he is being treated under:a specialized cardio electro physiologist at Hyderabad. The Central Gavernment alse entertained the Inter Cadre Transfer representation of the applicant on the ground of extreme hardship and also obtained the NOC from the State of Assarn ~ Meghalaya and addressed the Government of Telangana for its acceptance. AS already said, except mentioning in the reply affidavit that none of the States | agreed to take the applicant on Inter Cadre Transfer, the 1" respondent did not so far pass any order rejecting the request of the applicant assaining the reasons"
after taking into consideration the medical condition of the applicant. The applicant can reasonably expect an order from the 1° respondent - Union of india which considers the opinion of the Medical Board and the conditions and circumstances in which the applicant has been placed. The Government of Indis itself noticed the situation and therefore processed the application of Inter cadre .
Transfer submitted by the applicant.
32. Before passing final order in the OA ft would be necessary to peruse the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench in if on WolM A tb EAD ht.
a
3.
12. ff appears that the Govt. of india had allowed the applicant to ge an deputation with the Punjab Govt. after considering her problems enumerated above. Surely, the nature of the problem is such that her shart term of deputation has not solved them, rather the situation seems to have aggravated further. [t is perhaps after realising the magnitude of her problem that the State Govts. of Bihar and Punjab/Haryana have consented for her inter-cadre transfer.
13. Learned Counsel for the respondents stated that the Govt. of india have not allowed any inter-cadre transfers after 1995. Even if that be so, the respondents are having a definite policy under the Rules, which has yet nat been changed, and there is no bar to consider the subsequent deserving cases. ft may incidentally be pointed out thet the applicant had been making representations prior to 1995, but the same have remained unanswered til the impugned order Annexure A-4 was commuricated.
i4. In view af abave discussion, we fee! that the request of the applicant fails within the scope of the policy guidelines, Annexure 26, and the same has not been considered in its true perspective. Accardingly, the impugned arder dated 287.97 (A-4) is hereby quashed and respondent No. 1 is directed to consider the case of the applicant afresh. This be done within a period of twe ~ Ms Surinder Sidhao, IAS vs. Union of india & others, dealing with a case ides to the present one, the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal held as follows :
ve ers el a 19 af 3 i ee : / (eae months fram today. TH) then, the respondents will not Ok, repatriate the anplicant to her parent State of Bihar.
it is exclusively within the domain of the 1° respondent -- Union of india either te
23. Turning to the facts of the present case, we are aware of the fact that allow or reject the request of the inter Cadre Transfer made by the applicant. We.
are also aware that the applicant cannot as a matter of right enforce his clairn for inter Cadre Transfer by means of adjudication by this Tribunal. However, at the same time the applicant is entitled to seek a reasoned order which considers fis personal hardship and other circurnstances mentioned in the request of the Inter Cadre Transfer. So far the 1" respondent -- Union of India has not rejected the request of the applicant for inter Cadre Transfer by passing a reasoned order considering the totality of circumstances and the plight of the applicant. Though it is mentioned in the reply affidavit of the 1° respondent that none of the States which they consulted gave consent to take the applicant on Inter Cadre Transfer, in our view no final decision has bean taken by the 1" respandent ~ Government of India on the representation submitted by the applicant for Inter Cadre Transfer which is under process. in the circumstances of the present case the applicant:
can legitimately expect a reasoned order from the 1° respandent which considers the representation of the applicant for Inter Cadre Transfer in all respects.
24, {In view of what all stated herein above, the 1° respondent- Union af India is directed to take a decision on the representation of the applicept 20 of 21 LZ wet regarding his Inter Cadre Transfer, after duly considering the medical condition and other circumstances brought to its notice by the applicant and pass an appropriate reasoned order within a period of eight weeks. The 3° respondent is directed to issue posting order to the applicant in a suitable post in the State of Telangana within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order and pay him the pay and allowances which have become due considering that he has been continuing in the State of Telangana on deputation till date. The 3° respondent is further directed to communicate its decision to the 1° respondent --
Union of India regarding its acceptance or otherwise of taking the applicant on inter Cadre Transfer within a period of four weeks. i is further directed that in the event of any order passed by the 1" respandent -- Union of India rejecting the case of the applicant for Inter Cadre Transfer, the applicant get himself relieved from the deputation post within four weeks from the date of receipt of such rejection order.
25. With the above directions, the OA is disposed of In view af the disposal of the OA, M.A.No.722/2017 and M.A.No.55/2018 stands closed. There shall be no arder as to casts.
flap?