Central Administrative Tribunal - Lucknow
Om Kumar Srivastava Aged About 56 Years ... vs Union Of India on 26 February, 2016
Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow Original Application No. 332/00105/2016 This the 26th day of February, 2016 Honble Sri Navneet Kumar, Member (J) Om Kumar Srivastava aged about 56 years son of Sri S.K. Lal resident of 268/28, New Tilak Nagar, Lucknow. Applicant By advocate: Sri S.P. Singh Versus 1. Union of India, through the Cabinet Secretary, Govt. of India, New Delhi. 2. The Special Secretary (Pers.) Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, Room No. 7, Bikaner House (Annexe), new Delhi. 3. The Joint Secretary (Pers.), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, Room No. 7, Bikaner House (Annexe), new Delhi. 4. The Additional Secretary (Pers.) Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi. 5. The Additional Commissioner, Special Bureau, Lucknow. 6. The Deputy Commissioner, Special Bureau, Lucknow. 7. The Under Secretary (Pers.), E. Special Bureau, Lucknow. Respondents By Advocate; Sri Rajesh Katiyar ORDER (ORAL)
By Honble Sri Navneet Kumar, Member (J) The present O.A. is preferred by the applicant under Section 19 of the AT Act with the following reliefs:-
i) to direct the respondents to modify the order dated 10.2.2016 in respect of place of posting and the applicant is permitted to be promoted on the post of SFO (T) Lucknow in place of Mumbai.
ii) To pay the applicant salary and other admissible dues while posting him at Lucknow for the post of SFO(T).
iii) any other relief, which this Honble Tribunal may deem fit, just and proper under the circumstances of the case , may also be passed.
iv) cost of the present case.
2. The learned counsel for the applicant has categorically indicated that the applicant is transferred from Lucknow to Mumbai on promotion as SFO (T). Earlier, the applicant was transferred from Lucknow to Mumbai through order dated 23.12.2014 and has challenged the said order before this Tribunal in O.A. No. 51/2015 and the Tribunal directed the respondents to maintain the status quo in respect of the applicant till the next date of listing. The said interim order is extended from time to time. Learned counsel for applicant has also indicated that his wife is working as Assistant Accounts Officer (C ) and as per the transfer policy, the husband and wife are required to be posted at one place. Apart from this, he has also argued that the applicants son is studying in class XII and as per the date sheet of CBSE examination, the examination will be over on 16.4.2016. The applicant has also made a request to the authorities to cancel his transfer to Mumbai and adjust him at Lucknow as out of two sanctioned post of SFO (T), one post is lying vacant. He has also made an innocuous prayer that the respondents be directed to consider and decide the applicants representation and till the disposal of the said representation, applicant may not be disturbed.
3. On behalf of the respondents, it is argued that the applicant has been transferred to Mumbai on promotion as such he has no right to claim for his posting at one particular place even in case of vacancy exists. Apart from this, it is also argued by the learned counsel for respondents that transfer is an incidence of service and he should first report at his transfer place and thereafter make a request for cancellation or change of his transfer.
4. Heard the learned counsel for parties and perused the record.
5. Since the prayer so sought for by the applicant is innocuous in nature to the extent that a direction be issued to the respondents to consider and decide his representation dated 12.2.2016 as contained in Annexure No. 14 to the O.A. , as such I deem it appropriate in the interest of justice to issue a direction upon the respondents to consider and decide the applicants representation dated 12.2.2016 (Annexure 14 to the O.A.) within a period of 15 days in accordance with law and decision so taken be communicated to the applicant and till the disposal of the representation, respondents shall not take any coercive action against the applicant.
6. Learned counsel for applicant is also directed to provide copy of representation dated 12.2.2016 (Annexure 14) along with copy of this order to the respondents to facilitate them for early disposal of their representation.
7. With the above observations, O.A. stands disposed of. No order as to costs.
(Navneet Kumar) Member (J) HLS