Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Shweta Sinha vs Cgda on 30 January, 2025
1 OA 131/2025
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
KOLKATA BENCH
KOLKATA
O.A. 350/00131/2025
Date : 30.01.2025
Coram: Hon'ble Smt. Urmita Datta (Sen), Judicial Member
Hon'ble Mr. Suchitto Kumar Das, Administrative Member
In the matter of :
Shweta Sinha,
W/o Sri Subhash Kumar, aged about 38 years, working for gain
as Senior Auditor (Group-C) under the immediate control of
Dy. Controller of Defence Accounts, Area Accounts Office
Kolkata and under the overall control of the Controller General
of Defence Accounts at present residing at D-5, Sourav Abasan,
ED-Block, Salt Lake, Sector-II, Kolkata- 700091.
......Applicant
Vs.
1. Union of India service through the Secretary Defence
(Finance), Ministry of Defence, 139, South Block, New Delhi-
110001.
2. Controller General of Defence Accounts, Ulan Batar Road,
Palam, Delhi Cantt-110010.
3. Controller of Defence Accounts, Patna, Rajendra Path,
Patna- 800019.
4. Dy. Controller of Defence Accounts & I/C, Area Accounts
Office, Area Accounts Office Building, EM Block, Sector-V, Salt
Lake, Kolkata- 700091.
5. Sr. Accounts Officer, Area Accounts Office, Area Accounts
Office Building, EM Block, Salt Lake, Sector-V, Kolkata- 700091.
................Respondents
2 OA 131/2025
For the Applicant : Mr. C. Sinha, Counsel
For the Respondents : Mr. R. Halder, Counsel
O R D E R(Oral)
Suchitto Kumar Das, Administrative Member The applicant has approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 praying for the following relief:
"a) To set aside and quash impugned Transfer Order No. AN/X/10050/Seniority-10/2024/TR-1364-1596 dated 29.11.2024 issued by the Office of respondent no. 2.
b) To set aside and quash impugned release order no. AAO/AN-IA/ 01/Estt./Trans-Post/XI dated 23.01.2025 issued by the office of respondent no. 4.
c) To set aside and quash impugned letter dated 21.01.2025 issued by the office of respondent no. 2 rejecting the representation of the applicant.
d) To direct the respondents to allow the applicant to continue in her present place of posting at Kolkata at Area Accounts Office, Kolkata or in the alternative direct the respondents to consider the case of the applicant for posting under any station in or around Kolkata.
e) Any other order or orders as the Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper."
2. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been transferred to Secunderabad from Kolkata vide impugned order dated 29.11.2024 (Annexure-A/9). She made a representation on 04.12.2024 (Annexure-A/10) to the authorities requesting for her retention in Kolkata on the grounds that her spouse is a Gr. B Non-Gazetted staff of Income Tax Department posted in Kolkata and that she has young children who need looking after by both parents. This representation was rejected by a cryptic 3 OA 131/2025 order by the authorities and the applicant has been released from her post in Kolkata on 23.01.2025 (Annexure-A/14).
Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the letter dated 21.01.2025 (Annexure-A/12), vide which the representation of the applicant has been rejected, gives no cogent reasons for rejection of her request nor does it deal with the points raised by the applicant in support of her request. This reveals a complete lack of application of mind by the respondent authorities in the matter.
Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that DoP&T's OM dated 30.09.2009 (Annexure-A/16) stipulates that all efforts should be made to post the wife and the husband at the same place. The husband of the applicant belongs to the West Bengal Circle of Income Tax Department and cannot be posted to Secunderabad. Therefore, the applicant's case for retention in Kolkata should be considered in terms of DoP&T's OM dated 30.09.2009.
Learned Counsel for the applicant also submits that there are several others in the same cadre as the applicant who have served for much longer duration than the applicant in Kolkata. The applicant has been discriminated against in comparison to others who have been in Kolkata for much longer duration.
Learned Counsel for the applicant further submits that the transfer order has been issued in the mid-academic session in violation of the DoP&T's policy guidelines.
Learned Counsel for the applicant further submits that although the respondents had called for options and the applicant had indicated her options, they were not considered by the respondents. Learned Counsel for 4 OA 131/2025 the applicant prays for quashing of the transfer order dated 29.11.2024, rejection letter dated 21.01.2025 and release order dated 23.01.2025.
3. Learned Counsel Mr. R. Halder files his Memo of Appearance on behalf of the respondents.
Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the post occupied by the applicant carries an All India Transfer liability. He further submits that after the corporatization of the Ordnance Factories and the abolition of Ordnance Factories Board, requirement of Defence Accounts Department Personnel in Kolkata has reduced drastically. Administration has therefore transferred many of the staff and officers of the Department, to other stations as per administrative requirements following the guidelines incorporated in the DoP&T's transfer policy.
Learned Counsel for the respondents further submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has repeatedly held that transfer is an incidence of service and an administrative issue, not to be ordinarily interfered with by a judicial forum.
Learned Counsel for the respondents states that the representation of the applicant has been rejected after giving due consideration by the competent authority. He further submits that it is not correct that the applicant's husband cannot be transferred outside the West Bengal Circle. Provision exists in the Income Tax Department for Inter-Commissionerate Transfer of Income Tax Inspectors.
Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that while exercising her option, the applicant has indicated only 'Kolkata' as her preferred place of 5 OA 131/2025 posting. Since no vacancies are available in Kolkata, she cannot be accommodated in Kolkata.
4. Heard the parties. Perused material on record.
4.1 A perusal of the rejection letter dated 21.01.2025 reveals that the respondents have not specifically addressed the points raised by the applicant nor have they stated any reason for rejection of the applicant's representation. It is not clear from the impugned letter of rejection of the applicant's representation as to whether the competent authority has considered the grounds and reasons stated by the applicant in her representation. No reason has been given for arriving at the decision of rejection of applicant's representation vide their letter dated 21.01.2025. 4.2 In the circumstances, we set aside the order dated 21.01.2025, qua the applicant, and her relieving order dated 23.01.2025. Respondent no. 2 or any other competent authority is directed to consider the applicant's representation dated 04.12.2024 treating this OA as part of the said representation, within a period of 04 (four) weeks from the date a copy of this order is received in their office.
Respondents are further directed to allow the applicant to resume duty at Kolkata in her earlier post and not to give effect to the transfer order dated 29.11.2024 qua the applicant, till the communication of his decision on the representation of the applicant.
5. OA stands disposed of. No order as to costs.
(Suchitto Kumar Das) (Urmita Datta (Sen) Administrative Member Judicial Member sl