Central Administrative Tribunal - Lucknow
M.A.P. Khan vs Union Of India on 19 July, 2011
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, LUCKNOW BENCH, LUCKNOW. Original Application No. 202 of 2011 This the 19th day of July, 2011 Honble Mr. Justice Alok Kumar Singh , Member-J Honble Mr. S.P. Singh, Member-A M.A.P. Khan, Aged about 58 years, S/o Sri Maqsood Ali Khan, R/o L-8 A, Railway Colony, Jai Raod, Lucknow, presently posted as AWEE/CB/Lucknow. .Applicant By Advocate : Sri G.S. Verma Versus. 1. Union of India, through Principal Secretary, Railway Civil Secretariat, New Delhi. 2. General Manager/P, Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi. 3. The General Manager, Central Organization of Railway Electrification, Allahabad. 4. Chief Project Manager, Railway Electrification, Lucknow. 5. Sri R.K. Goel, Dy. CEE-1/RE/Lucknow. .Respondents By Advocate : Sri S. Verma. O R D E R (Oral)
By Justice Alok K Singh, Member-J Heard. At the outset, it may be mentioned that this O.A. is hit by Rule 10 of CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987 as multiple relief(s) have been claimed.
2. This O.A. has been filed mainly for two reliefs; (i) to quash the impugned transfer order dated 24.12.2010 passed by respondent no.4. Perusal of Annexure-1 shows that it is not a transfer order. It is a relieving order. Therefore, this relief has no meaning. Otherwise also, according to the applicants counsel himself, on the basis of instructions received by him, the applicant has been transferred from Railway Electrification to Northern Railway. But the learned counsel is not able to tell exactly about the said transfer order or the post to which he has been transferred. It appears that in the entire O.A., it has not been pleaded that the applicant continues to work on the said post. It is also not ascertainable as to whether or not he joined on new post where he has been transferred vide order dated 24.9.2010. Sri S. Verma, on the other side, says that after relieving, the applicant joined in Railway Electrification. Therefore, from every angle, this relief has no meaning.
3. The second relief pertains to order dated 8.3.2011 by means of which the applicant was refused to grant special disability leave. Instead, he was advised to apply for sanction of leave under normal sick rules. Sri S. Verma submits that in furtherance of the aforesaid direction, the applicant has already applied that kind of leave and he has also been sanctioned normal sick leave for 202 days from 26.1.2011 vide order dated 23.6.2011. Electostat copy of the same has also been shown by Sri S. Verma, counsel for the respondents. After perusing the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the applicant is not in a position to say anything.
4. In view of the above, this O.A. deserves dismissal having become infructuous. Accordingly, it is so ordered. No order as to costs.
(S.P. Singh) (Justice Alok K Singh)
Member-A Member-J
Girish/-
2