Central Administrative Tribunal - Jodhpur
Dr Arun Kumar Sharma vs Indian Council Of Agricultural ... on 27 September, 2019
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JODHPUR BENCH
...
Original Application No. 290/00079/2019
RESERVED ON : 19.09.2019
PRONOUNCED ON: 27.09.2019
CORAM:
HON'BLE MRS. HINA P.SHAH, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MS. ARCHANA NIGAM, MEMBER (A)
Dr. Arun Kumar Sharma s/o Shri Beni Ram Ji Sharma, aged
about 54 years, resident of 20/14, Chopasni Housing Board,
Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Shri Manoj Bhandari assisted by Shri Govind
Suthar)
Versus
1. The Indian Council of Agricultural Research through its
Secretary, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. The Director General, Indian Council of Agricultural
Research Institute, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi
3. The Central Arid Zone Research Institute, Jodhpur
through its Director.
4. The Chief Administrative Officer, Indian Council of
Agricultural Research, CAZRI, Jodhpur
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Shri Ashok Chhangani assisted by Mr.
Chaturbhuj)
2
ORDER
Per Mrs. Hina P.Shah By filing the present OA u/s 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant prays for quashing and setting aside the transfer order dated 12.3.2019 (Ann.A/1) whereby he has been transferred from ICAR-CAZRI, Jodhpur to ICAR-CAZRI's Regional Research Station, Leh- Ladakh (J&K) and to retain his posting at Jodhpur.
2. The case of the applicant is that he was appointed in the ICAR in the year 1991 as Scientist (Agronomy) at Central Arid Zone Research Institute (CAZRI), Jodhpur. He was subsequently transferred and posted from Division-2 to Division-6 in CAZRI, Jodhpur. His wife is working as Teacher in Education Department of the State of Rajasthan. Prior to completion of 3 years in Division-6, vide communication dated 12.3.2019 he has been transferred and posted to Regional Research Station, Leh-Ladakh (J&K). The applicant stated that as per the guidelines dated 30th September, 2009, husband and wife should be posted at the same station. He has also referred to Para 3.5.1 of the ICAR policy issued on 19.4.2018 (Ann.A/6) which prescribes that working couple should be posted at the 3 same station depending upon the vacancy in the relevant discipline and category at the proposed place of posting or in close proximity pursuant to the conditions stated in the office memorandum dated 30.3.2009. His wife is posted at Luni in Jodhpur District and he has been posted at Leh- Ladakh, therefore, the action of the respondents is absolutely contrary to the policy of the Government of India and the ICAR. The applicant is also a patient of High Blood Pressure and is having severe backache problems as can be fortified from the prescriptions issued by various hospitals. The Oxygen level at Leh-Ladakh is very low and the person, who is having Blood Pressure problem and some other ailments, would be unable to sustain in the climatic condition of Leh-Ladakh. Two persons have been posted as Scientist (Agronomy), whereas there is only one post existing. Looking to these circumstances, the applicant filed representation dated 22.3.2019 for cancellation of transfer to respondent No.2 and 3. The applicant has also sent the same by registered post and through e-mail (Ann.A/8). The home State of the applicant is Rajasthan and 50% cadre strength of scientists may be kept at place of posting and he is not above 50% of the State quota. The applicant has also averred that the transfer order has been issued 4 subsequent to inception of election process of Lok Sabha, 2019 and the Model Code of Conduct was made effective prior to the date of the order of transfer. Therefore, aggrieved by the action of the respondents, the applicant has filed the present OA.
3. By filing reply to the OA, the respondents have controverted the claim of the applicant and justified their action in transferring the applicant to Leh-Ladakh. The respondents have submitted that the applicant has filed the present OA without exhausting remedies available to him and stating that Section 20(2) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 lays down that where no final order is passed on the representation made by the applicant, then the OA is not maintainable unless the period of six months expires from the date of submission of the representation. The applicant has made representation on 22.3.2019, therefore, the present OA is premature because the competent authority is yet to take a decision on the representation submitted by the applicant. By way of reply to other averments, the respondents have denied the claim of the applicant.
5
4. Applicant has filed counter to the reply filed by the respondents and respondents have filed written submissions. A counter to the written submission of the respondents has also been filed by the applicant.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
6. The applicant in the present OA has represented the respondents for cancellation of his transfer vide representation dated 22.3.2019 (Ann.A/8) and thereafter immediately filed this OA 28.3.2019. It appears that the said representation of the applicant has not been decided by the competent authority so far. In these circumstances, without going into merit of the case, we deem it proper to direct the competent authority to decide the representation dated 22.3.2019 and pass a reasoned and speaking order. Ordered accordingly. Till the representation of the applicant is not decided, the interim direction issued on 2.4.2019 shall remain operative. While deciding representation of the applicant, the competent authority of the respondent department shall also take into consideration the grounds raised by the applicant in this OA.
6
7. The OA stands disposed of in above terms with no order as to costs.
(ARCHANA NIGAM) (HINA P.SHAH) ADMV. MEMBER JUDL. MEMBER R/