Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
Between vs The Chairman on 27 January, 2009
IN THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH : AT HYDERABAD O.A. No. 662 of 2008 Date of Order : 27-01-2009 Between:-
Mohd. Lateefuddin S/o Md. Shamshuddin, Aged about 52 years, working as BCR / Postal Assistant, Sangareddy HO, (on trnsfer to Narayankhed A Class Sub-Post Office, R/o Sangareddy, Dist. Medak. ...Applicant And
1. The Superintendent of Post Offices, Sangareddy Division, Sangareddy, Dist. Medak.
2. The Postmaster-General, Hyderabad Region, Hyderabad-500 001. ....Respondents Counsel for the Applicant : Sri S. Ramakrishna Rao Counsel for the Respondents : Sri G. Jayaprakash Babu, Sr. CGSC CORAM:
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MR P.LAKSHMANA REDDY :VICE-CHAIRMAN THE HON'BLE SRI R. SANTHANAM : MEMBER (ADMN.) (Order per Hon'ble Sri R. Santhanam, Member (A) )
---
This application has been filed challenging the order of the 1st Respondent No. B1-13/RTs/2008 dated 29.5.2008, transferring the applicant from the post of BCR / Postal Assistant, Sangareddy, to work as Sub-Postmaster, Narayanakhed 'A' Class Sub-Post Office even though the applicant has not completed his tenure.
2. The facts of the case in brief are as follows :-
The applicant is a Sr. BCR / Postal Asst. qualified in the Savings Bank Aptitude Test specially conducted for managing the SB Branches and has been working in SB Branch of Sangareddy Head Post Office since June, 2004. The applicant claims that the tenure of SB qualified officials is five years as per DGs instructions vide letter No. 2-3/86 SB dated 10.1.1991 and as such the applicant was not due for rotational transfer during the year 2007-08. The 1st Respondent called for the willingness of the applicant along with others for choosing their places of choice for transfers to be made for the block year 2007-08. Since the applicant had a five year tenure as SB Branch aptitude qualified candidate, he had, vide his representation dated 17.3.2008, requested that he may be continued to work in SB Branch at Sangareddy Head Post Office till completion of his tenure and in case that was not possible to post him either as Sub-Postmaster, R.C. Puram (village) or as Sub-Postmaster, Patancheru Ph.II. However, much to the surprise of the applicant, the 1st Respondent issued the impugned order dated 29.5.2008 transferring the applicant to work as Sub-Postmaster, Narayanakhed 'A' class Sub-Post Office as part of the general transfer of a number of officials. The applicant submitted a representation to the 2nd Respondent on 31.5.2008 for his retention at Sangareddy. This was rejected by the 2nd Respondent as communicated by the 1st Respondent vide his memo No. B1-13/RTs/ 2008 dated 24.7.2008. The applicant preferred an appeal dated 22.9.2008 to the 2nd Respondent pointing out that throughout his service he had been working in rural areas and no opportunity was given to work in R.C. Puram, BHEL areas and therefore when options were called for by the 1st Respondent, he had submitted his choice for posting him in one of the above places in veiw of the fact that he had shifted his residence to BHEL for the purpose of education of his children and if he is posted to Narayanakhed which is about 150 Kms away, his family life, especially the education of his children, would be very much affected. But no reply was given to the representation dated 22.9.2008. Hence this OA.
3. The Respondents in their reply statement have stated that the applicant while working as Postal Asst., O.F. Yeddumailaram SO had requested to post him as a PA,Sangareddy HO before completion of his tenure (after completion of 2 years) and his request was considered and he was posted as PA, Sangareddy HO on 17.6.2004. The applicant has been working there since 19.6.2004. In March, 2008, the applicant was asked to indicate his willingness mentioning three places of choice in the order of preference since he was completing his post tenure. Similar letters were sent to a number of officials who were completing post tenure by 30.9.2008. The applicant vide his representation dt. 17.3.2008 had requested for posting as Sub-Postmaster, RC Puram (village), 'C' class NDTSO and Patancheru Phase II NDTSO and if his request for the said offices was not considered, he requested for retention at Sangareddy HO for one more year stating that he is SB Aptitude Test qualified candidate and eligible for a tenure of five years. But his request was not considered since he was promoted under BCR Scheme with effect from 1.1.2007 and no official had volunteered to work as Sub-Postmaster, Narayanakhed 'A' class SO. Hence the applicant was transferred and posted as SPB, Narayanakhed SO during the rotational transfers in 2008, as the services of a senior BCR official was required at Narayanakhed SO. The applicant's representation dated 31.5.2008 for his retention was examined by the competent authority and he was informed vide RO letter dated 23.7.2008 that the orders of transfer are confirmed. Respondents have stated that the applicant was relieved on 21.8.08 AN at Sangareddy HO. The official did not join as Sub-Postmaster, Narayanakhed SO but produced medical certificate and applied for commuted leave with effect from 22.8.08 which was not granted. The official again applied for commuted leave in piece meal up to 4.11.2008 which was also not granted. The applicant vide his reply dated 22.9.2008 addressed to Postmaster General, Hyderabad Region, had reiterated to reconsider his case. He was informed by Regional Office vide letter No. PMG(H)/ST/33-3/RT/SGD/KW/08 dated 27.10.08 that his request had been examined and rejected by the competent authority. The Respondents have denied the contention of the applicant that the tenure of SB qualified officials as five years. They have stated that the maximum tenure in SB Branch is five years. They have added that the applicant was transferred to Narayanakhed in the interest of service since his services as a senior BCR official were required in that big office. The applicant cannot claim the place of posting of his choice as a matter of right. The administration can post the officers as and where required for the smooth functioning of the office.
4. The applicant has filed a rejoinder reiterating the points made in the application. He has added that he is deprived of the monetary benefit by this transfer. He has also stated that when unqualified officials are allowed to work and earn extra benefit in spite of availability of vacancies, his transfer to Nayarayanakhed is unsustainable.
5. Heard Sri S. Ramakrishna Rao, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri G. Jayaprakash Babu, learned senior standing counsel for central government for the respondents.
6. The short point that arises for consideration is whether the applicant's transfer to Narayanakhed SO 'A' class is legally sustainable or not.
7. The learned counsel for the applicant argued vehemently that the tenure of SB qualified officials is five years and there is no need for shifting the applicant from Sangareddy HO in 2008 when he was just completing 4 years and as such the transfer order was not issued on administrative grounds. According to him, the transfer order itself was illegal having no administrative necessity. He further contended that as per the departmental rules, the SB Branch in HO and Sub-offices should be maintained by SB qualified officials and out of the 4 SB Postal Assistants in Sangareddy HPO, the applicant alone was a SB aptitude test qualified candidate and his transfer will affect Sangareddy HO administration with not even one SB qualified official against four existing posts. The learned counsel further argued that the applicant's choice of place should have been given consideration when it was decided to transfer him when others were given opportunities for opting for places of their choice. The learned senior standing counsel for the Respondents submitted that transfer is an exigency of service and the applicant who had worked at Sangareddy HPO for 4 years and was completing his tenure was transferred in the normal course to a place where his services were required. He also pointed out that the Tribunal's powers in administrative matters is very limited as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a number of cases.
8. We have heard the rival contentions of both sides. We find from the notification for the aptitude test for SB/SC Branch that the maximum tenure in SB Branches is mentioned as five years inclusive of the period during which the official has worked in the branch prior to the introduction of the examination. We find that the applicant's contention that his tenure is for a period of five years and that he has been shifted before he completed his tenure is not supported by any circular or instruction. The law is well settled that Tribunals can entertain applications against transfers only if it is shown to be the outcome of malafide exercise of power or it is in violation of statutory provisions or against any transfer policy. In the case of P. Pushpakaran Vs. The Chairman, Coir Board, Cochin & Another (1979 (1) SLR 309), the Kerala High Court said "it cannot be disputed that an employer has a right to transfer his employee. An employee accepts employment fully knowing that he is liable to transfer from place to place for administrative reasons. This is one of the conditions of service. No employee can demur or cavil at an order of transfer. It is only when an order of transfer is made otherwise than in public interest or for no administrative reasons and in the circumstances amounting to punishment or with malafide intentions, that the transfer order gets exposed to challenge". The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Siya Ram & Others reported in [2004 (7) SCC 405] has held that 'no government servant has any legal right to be posted at any particular place'. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted below :-
"5. The High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 ( in short the 'Constitution' ) had gone into the question as to whether the transfer was in the interest of public service. That would essentially require factual adjudication and invariably depend upon peculiar facts and circumstances of the case concerned. No government servant or employee of a public undertaking has any legal right to be posted forever at any one particular place or place of his choice since transfer of a particular employee appointed to the class or category of transferable posts from one place to other is not only an incident, but a condition of service, necessary too in public interest and efficiency in the public administration. Unless an order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of mala fide exercise or stated to be in violation of statutory provisions prohibiting any such transfer, the courts or the tribunals normally cannot interfere with such orders as a matter of routine, as though they were the appellate authorities substituting their own decision for that of the employer/management, as against such orders passed in the interest of administrative exigencies of the service concerned. This position was highlighted by this Court in National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. v. Shri Bhagwan and Anr."
The same view has been expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a number of other cases as well. The applicant in this OA has not made out any case that his transfer was not in public interest or that it has been made in violation of any policy or statutory provisions. His contention that he was the only SB aptitude test qualified candidate in Sangareddy HPO must have been considered by the respondents. They are the best judges to decide where the applicant's services could be optionally utilized. The applicant has also contended that his tenure is 5 years. On the other hand, the respondents have stated that five years is the maximum tenure and that it does not mean that the applicant cannot be transferred when he has completed four years. We are inclined to agree with the respondents. The respondents have also stated that the applicant's services are required in Narayanakhed since he is a senior BCR official. No malafide has been attributed or proved against the Respondents. We are therefore of the considered view that there is no case for interference by the Tribunal in this matter. The applicant will be well advised to join in the new place of posting and to make a representation to the Respondents if he has any difficulty in continuing there.
9. The OA is dismissed as devoid of merits. No order as to costs.
(R. SANTHANAM) (P.LAKSHMANA REDDY)
Member (Admn.) Vice-Chairman