Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Anjali Dayal vs Directorate General Of Quality ... on 30 July, 2025
(Open Court)
Central Administrative Tribunal
Allahabad Bench, Allahabad
****
Original Application No.637 of 2024
This the 30th Day of July, 2025.
Hon'ble Mr. Rajnish Kumar Rai, Member (J)
Anjali Dayal, Junior Technical Officer JTO (S) aged about 53
years, W/o Ravindra Kumar, R/o SH-123 6th floor Chandra
Ganga Enclave Pokharpur, Kanpur Jajmau, 208010 CQA PP
Kanpur.
....Applicant.
By Advocate: Shri Anil Kumar Singh/Shri Rohit Singh.
Versus
1. Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Defence
Production 136 South Block, New Delhi.
2. The Director General of Quality Assurance Government of
India Ministry of Defence Production-DGQA (Stores)
Nirman Bhawan P.O. New Delhi.
3. The ADDL. DGQA(S) Department of Defence Production-
DGQA Q-Block New Delhi.
4. Controller CQA (GS)/ CQA (T & C) / CQA (M)/ CQA (PP)
Kanpur.
...Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan.
SHAKUNTALA VERMA
2
ORDER
Shri Anil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan, learned counsel for the respondents are present and heard.
2. This Original Application has been filed by the applicant challenging the impugned Transfer Order dated 07.05.2024, issued by Respondent No.2, whereby the applicant was directed to relocate from her present posting at CQA(PP), Kanpur to another station, despite having only recently joined the said office pursuant to her promotion as JTO (S) under the panel year 2019 vide order dated 10.10.2023, and having assumed charge on 17.10.2023. The applicant has also assailed the consequential relieving directions dated 27.05.2024 issued in furtherance of the transfer. It is contended that the said transfer has been effected in contravention of applicable Rotational Transfer Policies, notably the Ministry of Defence circular dated 24.11.2016, as amended on 17.02.2017, wherein tenure for Group 'B' officers is stipulated to be five years, and no administrative exigency has been cited in the present case. It is SHAKUNTALA VERMA 3 further submitted that the applicant's daughter is pursuing studies in Class IX and appeared for semester examinations, as recorded on 16.05.2024, thereby necessitating continuity of posting on academic and compassionate grounds. Upon initial consideration, this Tribunal, vide its Order dated 12.06.2024, was pleased to grant interim relief in the form of a stay on the operation of the impugned transfer, while directing the respondents to consider and dispose of the applicant's representation dated 15.05.2024 through a reasoned order. The said interim relief continues to remain operative as on date.
3. The matter is listed today under the heading 'Part Heard Matters'. Learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the respondents have been heard at length. The parties reiterated their respective positions based on the pleadings, annexed documents, and previous interim orders passed in this case.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that, in light of subsequent developments, multiple officials whose names appeared in the same Transfer Order dated 07.05.2024 have SHAKUNTALA VERMA 4 either assumed charge at their transferred stations, obtained interim protection from coordinate benches of this Tribunal, or been retained at their existing postings upon consideration of individual hardships. He placed reliance upon the earlier decision of this Tribunal dated 22.04.2025 passed in O.A. No. 1010/2017, wherein a similarly situated applicant nearing superannuation was extended protection under the Transfer Policy dated 10.02.2017, having regard to cadre-specific exemption and personal exigency. The Tribunal's Order dated 22.04.2025 is reproduced herein below for reference and contextual application to the present proceedings:-
"Open Court CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD BENCH ALLAHABAD ********* Original Application No. 1010 of 2017 Allahabad this the 22nd day of April, 2025 Hon'ble Mr. Rajnish Kumar Rai, Member-J
1. Anjali Dayal (SA), aged about 45 years, W/o Ravindra Kumar, Resident of SH-123 6th Floor Chandra Ganga Enclave Pokharpur, Kanpur Jajmau, 208010 CQA (Materials).
2. Mithlesh Kumar JTO (S), aged about 53 years, S/o Late Babu Lal, Resident of House No. 4/233 Purana Kanpur 208002 CQA (Textile & Clothing).
3. Deleted vide Order dated 22.12.2022.
SHAKUNTALA VERMA 5
4. Dinesh Kumar Srivastava JTO (S), aged about 56 years, S/o Shri Umesh Chandra Lal, Resident of G-2, Shri Girdhari Apptt 128-543/13, 'K' Block Kidwai Nagar, Kanpur - 208011 CQA (Textile & Clothing).
5. Uma Shanker JTO (S), aged about 50 years, S/o Late Bhikha Ram, Resident of H. No. 90, Amrit Puram, Koyla Nagar, Kanpur Textile & Clothing.
Applicant By Advocates: Mr. Anil Kumar Singh Mr. M.K. Upadhyay Vs.
1. Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Defence Production 136, South Block, New Delhi.
2. The Director General of Quality Assurance Government of India Ministry of Defence Production- DGQA, 308-A, D-I Wing, Sena Bhawan New Delhi 110011.
3. The ADDL. DGQA (S) Department of Defence Production-DGQA Q-Block, New Delhi.
4. Controller, Controllerate of Quality Assurance (Materials/Textiles & Clothing) DGQA Stores Complex Ashok Path Kanpur - 208004.
Respondents By Advocate: Mr. Raghvendra Pratap Singh ORDER Shri Anil Kumar Singh, counsel for the applicants and Shri Raghvendra Pratap Singh, counsel for the respondents are present and heard.
2. This O.A. has been filed by the applicants against the impugned transfer order dated 19.07.2017 passed by the respondent No. 3. The applicants have also challenged the relieving order dated 18.08.2017. This Tribunal vide Order dated 29.08.2017 restrained the respondents to give effect the aforesaid transfer order and relieving order. Till today, the interim order has been continuing.
SHAKUNTALA VERMA 6
3. This case is listed today under the heading 'final hearing'. Counsels for the parties have been heard.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that by the afflux of time, the status of the applicants has been changed. He further submitted that the applicant No. 1-Anjali Dayal has joined at the place of transfer and she does not want to pursue further this O.A. Hence, with respect to applicant No. 1, the O.A. has become infructuous. Regarding applicant No. 2, the applicants' counsel has submitted that he has retired, as such, against the applicant No. 2, the O.A. has become infructuous. The name of applicant No. 3 was already deleted in compliance of the Order of this Tribunal dated 22.10.2022. As regard applicant No. 4, the applicants' counsel has submitted that he has retired, as such, against the applicant No. 4, the O.A. has become infructuous.
5. So far as applicant No. 5 is concerned, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that he has only two years left for superannuation hence, as per Transfer Policy framed by Department of Defence Production, Government of India dated 10.02.2017, he should be exempted from future rotational transfer.
6. The respondents have filed the counter reply wherein they submitted that the treasurer of All India DGQA Engineering Association has challenged the transfer order before the Principal Bench of this Tribunal through O.A. No. 1310 of 2017 (Sri Gautam Singh V. The Secretary, Ministry of Defence) and while dismissing the aforesaid Ο.Α. vide order dated 25.04.2017, the Principal Bench, CAT, New Delhi has imposed a cost of Rs.25,000/-on the applicant, observed in para-ll of the judgment that "needless to say that in case the Tribunal starts interfering in such routine administrative functions and stay or cancel such transfers, it would create serious problem for the administration. The Principal Bench relied upon the judgment of S.C. Saxena Vs. Union of India and another, 2006 SCC (L&S) 1890 dismissed the aforesaid O.Α. In another O.A. i.e. O.A. No.1339 of 2017 (Pawan Jindal, General Secretary All India DGQA, Engineering Association Vs. Union of India and others), Principal Bench CAT, New Delhi vide judgment and order dated 25.04.2017 dismissed the Ο.Α. and imposed a cost of Rs.10,000/-, with further observation "Needless to say, this O.A. is not maintainable as the applicant has failed to satisfy this Tribunal why transfer should be quashed and secondly, he has no SHAKUNTALA VERMA 7 locus-standi as an individual to question the transfer of other officials. In any case, this is not an individual transfer and it is a rotational transfer, which is undertaken every year and large number of people have been transferred. This is an attempt by the applicant to derail the smooth functioning of the organization and waste precious judicial time and men power"
7. Initially, the interim order was granted in favour of present applicants on 29.08.2017 keeping in view that in the identical O.A. No. 305/2017 connected with O.A No. 486/2017 before the Mumbai Bench as well as in the OA. 2791/2017 filed before the Principal Bench at New Delhi, the interim order was granted in favour of the applicants therein. Accordingly, the interest of the applicants herein was also protected. Thereafter, on 11.01.2019, the Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal dismissed the aforesaid OAs after taking into consideration the Order dated 17.12.2008 of the Principal Bench in O.A. 2791/2017. The relevant part of the Order dated 11.01.2019 is quoted herein below: -
"2. When the case was first heard on 15.05.2017, the applicants brought to notice the orders of the Bangalore Bench granting interim relief to the applicants therein, and the applicants in the present cases were granted interim relief, which continues today. During the hearing on 08.08.2018, the learned counsel for applicants informed that a transfer application had been filed before the Principal Bench for transfer of this OA, but was not granted. In response, the Principal Bench passed orders on 31.08.2018 in PT Nos. 142/2018, 146/2018 and 174/2018 staying the proceedings before this Tribunal. Therefore, it is apparent that the applicants all along are arguing for keeping these matters pending until orders of the Principal Bench on the principal issue of their challenge to the Rotational Transfer Policy. Those orders are now available in orders of the Principal Bench in OA No.2791/2017 decided on 17.12.2018 by which it has been decided as below:-
"New RTP relating to not holding of DPCs, not identifying sensitive and non sensitive posts, presumptive cost to exchequer and not following the recommendations of the concerned committee are not tenable. Formulation of policy is in the domain of the competent authority and unless there is some clear irregularity, which the above points do not indicate, any interference by this Tribunal is totally unwarranted. Thus, the matter regarding the validity of the New RTP being SHAKUNTALA VERMA 8 completely covered by the judgment of the Bangalore bench of this Tribunal referred above and, furthermore, the applicants have failed to give any convincing reason why this policy should be interfered with, we come to the conclusion that there is no ground to interfere with the New RTP dated 24.11.2016 challenged in the present OA."
3. Taking into consideration the stand of the parties all along during the pendency of the OA that the present OAs are identical to the OA No. 2791/2017 in Mrs. Alka Chauhan & Ors. V/s. Union of India & Ors. decided on 17.12.2018, pending before the Principal Bench of this Tribunal, and the fact that the said matter Alka Chauhan (Supra) has since been decided by the Principal Bench vide Judgment and Order dated 17.12.2018, we are of the view that the present OAs may also be disposed in the same terms as order dated 17.12.2018 in OA No.2791/2017. 20 OA No. 305 of 2017 with OA No.486/2017
4. In view of the above, both the above OAs are dismissed without any order as to costs."
7. Looking into peculiar facts of the case, O.A. is not survived with respect to applicants No. 1 to 4 and applicant No. 5 is due to be superannuated within two years. Accordingly, in view of the submission of counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that no purpose would be served in keeping this O.A. pending. Accordingly, the O.A. stands disposed of qua applicant No. 5 with direction to him to move a fresh representation in the light of aforesaid transfer policy of Department of Defence Production dated 10.02.2017 within a period of fifteen days from today and further the respondents are directed to consider and decide the such representation if, moved by the applicant, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of fresh representation along with a certified copy of this Order. Till the disposal of representation, the respondents are directed not to take any coercive action against the applicant No. 5. The action taken on the representation of applicant, shall be communicated to the applicant forthwith. No cost."
5. The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the present Original Application may be disposed of at this SHAKUNTALA VERMA 9 stage, with liberty to the applicant to pursue appropriate remedy, if any cause still survives against her.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents, though present, has not raised any substantive objection to the limited prayer made on behalf of the applicant for disposal of the representation in accordance with law.
7. Accordingly, in view of the submission of counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that no purpose would be served in keeping this Original Application pending. Accordingly, the O.A. stands disposed of at this stage with liberty to the applicant that, if any cause still survives against her, she may move a representation for redressal of her grievances before the competent authority within a period of one month from the date of this Order. In such event, the respondents are directed to consider and decide such representation, if moved by the applicant, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the fresh representation along with a certified copy of this Order. Till disposal of such representation, no coercive action shall be taken against the SHAKUNTALA VERMA 10 applicant in respect of whom the cause still survives. The action taken on the representation shall be communicated to the applicant forthwith. No costs.
8. All pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(Rajnish Kumar Rai) Member (J) /Shakuntala/ SHAKUNTALA VERMA