Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Arvind Khare vs Union Of India on 9 February, 2015
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH O.A. No. 539/2015 New Delhi, this the 9th day of February, 2015. HONBLE MR. G. GEORGE PARACKEN, MEMBER (J) Arvind Khare, Age 39 years, S/o Late Shri R.P. Khare, Addl. IFA, Office of Principal IFA (Army Ord). R/o EA-1/40, IIIrd Floor, Inderpuri, New Delhi-110012. .. Applicant (By Advocate : Shri Padma Kumar S.) Versus 1. Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Defence, South Block, New Delhi-110011. 2. Controller General of Defence Accounts, Office of CGDA, Ulan Batar Road Palam, Delhi Cantt. 3. Joint Controller General Defence Accounts (Admn.), Office of CGDA, Ulan Batar Road Palam, Delhi Cantt. 4. Deputy CGDA (Admn), Office of CGDA, Ulan Batar Road Palam, Delhi Cantt. 5. Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension), Draupadi Ghat, Allahabad, UP. .. Respondents ORDER (ORAL)
Heard the learned counsel for the Applicant.
2. The Applicant has filed this Original Application aggrieved by the impugned order No.AN-1/1170/1/LXXII dated 07.01.2015 (Annexure A-1) to the extent that he has been transferred from his present place of posting, i.e. PIFA (Army-O) under PCDA, New Delhi to PCDA (P), Allahabad. His contention is that the aforesaid transfer is against the Respondents own Transfer Policy.
3. The learned counsel for the Applicant has submitted that Applicant is the father of a differently disabled child and the Govt. of India, Ministry of Personnel, P.G. and Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training O.M. No.42011/3/2014-Estt.(Res) dated 06.06.2014 have categorically considered the demand of the Government employees who are caring their disabled children and decided that any displacement of such Government employee will have a bearing on the systematic rehabilitation of the disabled child since the new environment/set up could prove to be a hindrance for the rehabilitation process of the child.
4. The Applicant has also made various representations to the Respondents in this regard (Annexure A-8 Colly.) before approaching this Tribunal seeking a direction for quashing the aforesaid order in this case and allow him to work at the present place of posting. According to the Applicant, none of those representations have been considered by the Respondents.
5. The learned counsel for the Applicant also submitted that in view of the fact that the Respondents have not considered his request, he was forced to proceed on leave upto 05.02.2015 and has further sought extension of leave upto 02.04.2015.
6. In view of above submissions, I dispose of this O.A. at the admission stage, without going into the merits of the case, by directing the Respondents to consider the Applicants representations in the light of the aforesaid O.M. dated 06.06.2014 and to pass a reasoned and speaking order thereon within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, under intimation to the Applicant. Till such time, the Applicant shall not be relieved from his present place of posting. There shall be no order as to costs.
Service of this order is allowed by DASTI.
(G. George Paracken) Member (J) /Jyoti/