Central Administrative Tribunal - Ahmedabad
Mangi Lal Karwa vs Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan on 7 September, 2022
:: 1 :: OA No 195/2022
.
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
AHMEDABAD BENCH
Original Application No.195/2022
Dated this the 07th day of September, 2022
CORAM:
Hon'ble Justice Rameshwar Vyas, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. A. K. Dubey, Member (A)
1. Mangi Lal Karwa,
S/o Pitamber Das
Post Graduate Teacher (Comp. Sc)
B-304, Kancheswar Appartment
Near Kargil Chowk, Piplod Surat - 395 007 (Guj.)
Mob.: 9649365832
Email : [email protected]
Present place of employment Kendriya Vidyalaya No 1 Ichhanath
Opp Svnit, Ichhanath Surat
Gujrat - 395 007, Off.: 0261-2960082, 9649365832
...Applicant
(By applicant party in person)
Vs
1. The Commissioner
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (HQ)
18, Institutional Area
Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg,
New Delhi - 110 016 Phone: +91-11-26858570
2. The Deputy Commissioner
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan - Ahmedabad Region
Gyandeep, Sector - 30, Gandhinagar, Gujarat - 382 030
Phone : 079-23260361 Email: [email protected]
3. The Finance Officer
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan - Ahmedabad Region
Gyandeep, Sector - 30
Gandhinagar, Gujarat - 382 030
Phone : 079 - 23260711 Email: [email protected]
4. The Principal
Kendriya Vidyalaya No 1 Ichhanath Surat
Opp SVNIT Surat - Gujrat - 395 007
Phone: 0261 - 2960082 Email : [email protected]
...Respondents
(By Advocate Mr. Shashikant Gade)
:: 2 :: OA No 195/2022
.
ORDER (ORAL)
Per: Hon'ble Dr. A K Dubey, Member (A)
1. Aggrieved by the order of recovery of transfer TA for his transfer from KV Dhrangadrha to KV Surat, the applicant has approached this Tribunal seeking cancellation of the recovery order and repayment of the amount recovered. The applicant appeared as party in person. His main contentions are as under:-
2. He was working as PGT in Kendriya Vidyalaya Jalipa Cantt.
from where he was shifted to KV Mehboobnagar after completion of his tenure at hard station; he had been there for a period of over 5 years i.e., from 02.06.2011 to 27.07.2016. He represented against it on the plea that he was posted to KV Mehboobnagar as displaced candidate. His representation was considered and his transfer order was accordingly modified to KV Dhrangadrha vide order dated 04.08.2016 (Annex. A/3) which is again a hard station. He had been at Dhrangadrha from 08.08.2016 to 18.08.2018. Obviously he never joined at Mehboobnagar. 2.1 From Dhrangadrha, he made a request for transfer to KV, Surat where he joined in August 2018.
2.2 The transfer of the applicant from Jalipa Cantt to Mehboobnagar was in public interest which was modified vide order dated 04.08.2016 to KV Dhrangadrha at the applicant's own request with immediate effect. However, from KV Dhrangadrha, he was shifted to KV Surat at his own request and prior to completion of his tenure there. For his transfer, he claimed the transfer TA which has been objected to in the Audit and in accordance with this, the transfer benefits already paid to him were recovered on the plea that his transfer from Dhrangadrha to Surat was not after completion of his tenure of 3 years and hence in :: 3 :: OA No 195/2022 .
accordance with the provision contained in supplementary Rule No. 116 read with Appendix 15 of the Accounts Code for KVS, he was not eligible for transfer benefits.
2.3 The applicant argued that he was at hard station at Jalipa and from there he came to Dhrangadrha, which was again a hard station. For further transfer from there he requested for KV Surat, which was granted. In this context, he referred to a letter from KVS dated 23.04.2014 (Annex. A/2) which he claims that every year the same content is notified. He argued that Dhrangadrha also is a hard station and therefore his transfer from Dhrangadrha to Surat should have been taken as transfer from hard station, as he had to his credit a combined hard posting of over 6 years. He referred to the information obtained under RTI Act, according to which, one is not required to complete a fresh tenure on a new post after if he is transferred to another hard posting from one hard posting before completing a tenure of two years (Annex A/2 colly.) He also referred to the clarification provided in the KVS communication dated 25.11.2005 as per which the intervening period of a teacher of immunity category who was relieved on account of his transfer and later his transfer order was modified on request with posting at the same station but other than previous Vidyalaya may be regularized by treating him on duty and in those cases all kinds of irregular transfers modified at request or otherwise and posted to a new place, such corrections could be treated as public interest. Finally, he referred to the provisions contained in Supplementary Rule No. 114 according to which the posting to the place of choice after completion of full tenure may not be normally termed as transfer of own request.
:: 4 :: OA No 195/2022.
3. The respondents have submitted their reply mainly arguing that the applicant was transferred from KV Jalipa Cantt to KV Mehboobnagar but he did not joined at Mehboobnagar and at his request, the order was modified to accommodate him in Dhrangadrha. Since this was his request transfer yet keeping in view the fact that he was transferred from one hard place to another hard place he availed of the transfer TA for joining at Dhrangadrha. The order of modification of his transfer from Mehboobnagar to Dhrangadrha is self explanatory which clearly mentions that it was at his own request. With this the benefit of hard posting at Jalipa has been granted and accommodated. Now, from Dhrangadrha he again made a request for transfer to Surat and Surat is not a hard station. So this is the second request which has been granted by the KVS but this being a request transfer without completing the tenure, he is not entitled to transfer TA and hence the recovery was ordered in compliance of the Audit objection.
4. Heard the parties. It is absolutely clear that after spending the prescribed tenure or more at one hard station, he was transferred to non-hard station where the applicant did not want to join and made a request to accommodate him at Dhrangadrha. The respondents obliged him and he was posted at Dhrangadrha which again is a hard station. But prior to completion of 2 or 3 years at Dhrangadrha, the applicant again requested for transfer which was considered by the respondents and was granted by posting him in KV Surat. This was only after one year and one month at Dhrangadrha, the hard station. So it is evident from records that he did not complete the tenure at Dhrangadrha and yet made a request for a transfer to Surat which was granted. The transfer order dated 10.08.2018 clearly mentions that employees who have completed their tenure at hard/very :: 5 :: OA No 195/2022 .
hard/any hard station and those who have been transferred on displacement would be entitled to transfer benefits as per the KVS Rules. In this case, he had not completed his tenure at Dhrangadrha, the hard station. The recovery was made on the basis of the Audit objection on this very issue that after accommodation of his first request he was shifted to Dhrangadrha from Mehboobnagar on his own request but at Dhrangadrha he had spent only one year and one month and without completing his tenure, he made yet another request and got a transfer to KV Surat. Since the prescribed tenure at the new station was not completed, transfer TA was not admissible in such cases, as per rules, and hence the recovery of transfer TA was made.
5. We are of the considered opinion that the respondent's action has neither been against the Rules nor discriminatory at all. While coming from Jalipa to Dhrangadrha which was as a result of modification of transfer order at his own request, he did avail of the transfer entitlements. Obviously, the benefit of hard posting was granted to the applicant. Now without completing the tenure at Dhrangadrha, the applicant got transferred to surat on his own request. Respondents have granted the request of the applicant for transfer and we don't find any reason to interfere with the respondent's action. Respondent's action is not violative of any extant instructions. The OA lacks merit and the same is therefore dismissed.
(A K Dubey) (Rameshwar Vyas)
Member(A) Member(J)
PA