Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Mes No. 315038 Pawan Kumar Udc Aged 51 ... vs Union Of India Through Secretary on 15 September, 2016
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 060/00860/2016
Date of filing: 09.09.2016
Order reserved on: 12.09.2016
Chandigarh, this the 15th day of September, 2016
CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE L.N. MITTAL, MEMBER (J) &
HONBLE SMT. RAJWANT SANDHU, MEMBER (A)
1. MES No. 315038 Pawan Kumar UDC aged 51 years, S/o sh. Jagdish Rai (Group-C), C/o GE (P) Ambala Cantt.
2. MES No. 313273 Jai Kumar, UDC aged 57 years son of Sh. Faqir Chand, Group-C, C/o GE (N) Ambala Cantt.
.APPLICANTS
BY ADVOCATE: SHRI SHAILENDRA SHARMA
VERSUS
1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Defence, South Block, New Delhi.
2. The Engineer in Chief, Integrated HQ of MoD (Army), Kashmir House, New Delhi.
3. The Chief Engineer, Western Command, Chandimandir.
4. Commander Works Engineer (AF), Ambala Cantt.
.RESPONDENTS
ORDER
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE L.N. MITTAL, MEMBER(J):-
Applicants Pawan Kumar and Jai Kumar have filed this Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, assailing transfer order dated 23.6.2016 (Annexure A-2) whereby they have been transferred from Ambala to Sarsawa.
2. Case of the applicants is that applicant no. 1 joined service of respondents as Peon in the office of Commander Works Engineer (CWE), Ambala Cantt on 3.1.1990. He was promoted as LDC on 11.2.1997 and transferred to the office of Garrison Engineer (P), Patiala and then on 26.12.2001, to Bathinda. On 18.5.2004, he was transferred back to Ambala and is there since then. Applicant no. 2 was appointed as Peon in the office of CWE, Ambala on 6.8.1980. He was promoted as LDC on 10.2.1997 and transferred to CE, Chandigarh Zone. He was transferred to Bathinda on 28.12.2000. He was transferred back to Ambala on 10.2.2003 and is there since then.
3. Case of the applicants is that impugned transfer order qua them is in violation of transfer policy of May, 2008 (Annexure A-1). They belong to non-sensitive category and, therefore, they are not liable for posting on local turn over (LTO). It is also alleged that even female employees can be posted upto 80 kilometers and Sarsawa is 80 kilometers from Ambala. Pooja Bhardwaj and Chanchal Batra female employees have longer stay in Ambala than the applicants as per Nominal Roll (Annexure A-3) and, therefore, they should have been transferred.
4. We have heard counsel for applicants on the question of admission of the O.A. and perused the case file.
5. Counsel for the applicants reiterated the version pleaded in the O.A.
6. We have carefully considered the matter. At the outset, it may be mentioned that in the O.A., the applicants have pleaded that their representations have been rejected vide non-speaking orders dated 12.8.2016. During the course of hearing, when it was pointed out to counsel for the applicants that said orders dated 12.8.2016 rejecting representations of the applicants against the impugned transfer order have been not challenged in the O.A., learned counsel stated that this plea in the O.A. is factually incorrect and in fact the applicants did not make any representation against the impugned transfer order.
7. Out of more than 26 years of service, applicant no. 1 has been out of Ambala for just about 7 years only and has been at Ambala for more than 19 years. Applicant no. 2, out of 36 years service, has been out of Ambala for 6 years only and has been at Ambala for 30 years. In view of such long stay of applicants at Ambala, they should not have been aggrieved against the impugned order transferring them to Sarsawa which is said to be only 80 kilometers from Ambala. The applicants cannot claim to remain posted at Ambala throughout their entire service career. On the other hand, transfer is an incidence of service. Courts normally do not interfere with the transfer orders issued by administrative authorities except for very special reasons. Case of the applicants does not fall in that category.
8. Merely because two female employees Pooja Bhardwaj and Chanchal Batra have not been transferred out although having longer stay than the applicants at Ambala would not invalidate the impugned transfer order of the applicants.
9. The instant O.A., although filed within limitation period, is barred by delay and laches inasmuch as the impugned transfer order should have been challenged immediately, but the O.A. has been filed on 9.9.2016 i.e. two and half months after issuance of the impugned transfer order dated 23.6.2016 which stipulates movement date as 30.6.2016. The O.A. has thus been filed more than 2 months after the movement date.
10. Be that as it may be, we find no ground to interfere with the impugned transfer order of the applicants. The O.A. is, therefore, dismissed in limine.
(JUSTICE L.N. MITTAL) MEMBER (J) (RAJWANT SANDHU) MEMBER (A) Dated: 15.09.2016 `SK 1 (O.A. No. 060/00860/2016 )