Central Administrative Tribunal - Jaipur
Pooja Kumari vs Defence on 14 September, 2023
1
OA No. 476/2023
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
...
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 476/2023
Order reserved on : 08.09.2023
Date of order: 14.09.2023
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. RANJANA SHAHI, MEMBER (J)
Pooja Kumari w/o Shri Yashwant Kumar Bhawalia,
aged about 29 years, R/o Villa No. 5 Sharda
Residendy, Mangalam Grad City, Mahapura, Ajmer
Road, Jaipur.
Mob. No. 8426985301, [email protected]
[The applicant is working on the post of Switch Board
and Telephone Operator Grade-II in the office of south
west command signal Regiment, C/O 56 APO, Jaipur
Cantt. And it is a Grouop 'C' post]
Applicant
(By Adv: Shri M.K. Meena)
Versus
1. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of
Defence, Government of India, South Block,
New Delhi-110011.
2. The Chief of Army Staff, South Block, New
Delhi-110011.
3. The DG Signals, 'A' Wing, Sena Bhawan, New
Delhi-110011.
4. OIC Singal Records, 1STC, Jabalpur, Madhya
Pradesh-908770 C/o 56 APO.
2
OA No. 476/2023
5. Commanding Officer, South West Command
Signal Regt. C/o 56 APO Jaipur. Pin-302012.
...Respondents.
(By Adv: Shri Anand Sharma)
ORDER
The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant against the impugned orders dated 14.06.2023 (Annexure-A/1) & 26.06.2023 (Annexure- A/2) by which she has been transferred in pursuance to Rotational Transfer Policy dated 22.09.2022. She has also challenged the order dated 04.09.2023 (Annexure-A/6) whereby her representation for retention has been dismissed and she has been ordered to be relieved from his present place of posting.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant states that it is second round of litigation. The applicant earlier filed O.A. No. 456/2023 which was decided on 29.08.2023 and the said O.A. was disposed of with a direction to file a fresh representation to consider her request and respondents were directed to decide the said representation at the earliest and communicate the 3 OA No. 476/2023 decision to the applicant. He states that the respondents have dismissed her representation in hot haste vide order dated 04.09.2023.
3. The main ground on which the applicant challenging the impugned transfer order dated 14.06.2023 and 26.06.2023 is that she is being transferred in pursuance of RTP dated 22.09.2022 whereas AO No. 12/2020/MP-4 dated 03.08.2020 is in existence. The second ground of the applicant is that she is having a girl child of 16 months old only and old mother-in-law and father-in-law of 63 and 67 years. Another ground emphasized by learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is a low paid employee. Learned counsel for the applicant also laid stress upon that the post of Switch Board and Telephone Operator is not a sensitive post.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant also emphasized on the Clause 7 (h) Rotational Transfer Policy for Civilian Switch Board Operators and Telephone Supervisors under GE Branch Common Roster dated 22.09.2022 (Annexure-A/3) and argued that as per the aforesaid Clause 7 (h) the applicant 4 OA No. 476/2023 may be granted one time extension during his entire service tenure. Clause 7 (h) reads as under:
"(h) Extension of Tenure - Maximum of one-year extension beyond normal tenure will be permitted. Request for such extension shall be initiated by the respective unit with detailed justification for consideration of the OIC Records minimum six months prior to completion of tenure, i.e. upto two & half years tenure in the current establishment/station. Once transfer order is issued, it will be treated as final and no representation will be considered thereafter.
Extension of tenure whether on personal requirement or organisational requirement, will be granted only once during the entire service.
5. As per the provision of the aforesaid clause 7 (h) it is crystal clear that request is to be initiated by the respective unit with detailed justification for consideration of OIC records six months prior to completion of tenure and once the transfer order is issued it will be treated as final and no representation will be considered thereafter. In the present case, the applicant's transfer order as well as relieving/movement order has already been issued, therefore, applicant's argument, that she may be granted extension of tenure, does not come to rescue 5 OA No. 476/2023 of the applicant. Since argument of learned counsel for the applicant that she is having 16 month old girl child and old age mother-in-law and father-in-law. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that the applicant may have availed maternity leave and further she may avail child care leave to care her child.
6. Since, argument of learned counsel for the applicant is concerned that CSBO post is not a sensitive post, is cannot sustain as Clause 3 of the Rotation Transfer Policy dated 22.09.2022 clearly declares CSBO as sensitive posts. Clause 3 of the Rotational Transfer Policy reads as under:
"3. By virtue of the nature of CSBO's task in handling telephone calls of VIP, VVIP and Senior Army Commanders, including Field Commanders: and complete awareness of classified information, CSBO Cadre posts have been identified as sensitive posts."
7. The applicant is serving at the present place of posting since 27.01.2016 and the impugned transfer order dated 26.06.2023, (Annexure A/1), does not single out the applicant but by this order en bloc 6 OA No. 476/2023 number of other employees are being transferred under RTP.
8. In view of the above discussions made above, I find no merit in the present Original Application and the same deserves to be dismissed at this stage itself.
9. Accordingly, present Original Application is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Ranjana Shahi) Member (J) !Vv~