Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
J.P. Sharma S/O Late Shri C.R. Sharma vs Union Of India (Uoi) Through The Foreign ... on 5 October, 2007
ORDER
M. Ramachandran, J. (Vice Chairman)
1. On the consent of the parties, the matter had been taken up for final hearing and is being disposed of.
2. The applicant has impugned certain proceedings being the minutes of the Senior Establishment Board held on 21st June, 2007, dated 10.7.2007 to the extent that he has been excluded from consideration for posting outside India. It is titled as the approved minutes of 191st Meeting of the Board. We may briefly advert to the relevant circumstances so as to appreciate the contentions that have been raised by the parties.
3. Applicant belongs to the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi and is working as Stenographer. The officers and staff of the Department are liable to undergo transfer to the Indian Missions/Posts located abroad. It is evident that transfers generally to outside countries are welcomed by the persons concerned, but there are also stations, where there might be some amount of reluctance for some officers to go. Respondents have divided the 166 countries where the Indian Missions/Posts are located, to five categories for the purpose of posting, and they are Super A (A*), A, B, C, and Hard C (C*) in descending order. Officers are posted by rotation, and there are three Boards, namely, Foreign Service Board (FSB), Senior Establishment Board (SEB) and Junior Establishment Board (JEB) to consider postings, taking notice of the generally accepted norms.
4. Although there is no written policy for posting/transfer, a workable arrangement is in vogue. Officials from the Stenographers category evidently are entitled to three consecutive postings abroad and such employees are entitled to opt for four-five stations of their choice. The case of the applicant was that on compassionate circumstances, he had been given postings out of turn initially from 1991-1995 to London, he was again posted to Budapest from 1995-1998 and thereafter to London from 1998-2003. He had been due for another posting from June, 2006. However, although he had confined his request for a posting to London or a nearby area, such request was not taken notice of. According to the respondents, London was a super Station (taking notice of the convenience available in the city), and he was due for a transfer to B, C or C* station. The applicant had not been obliged with the transfers because he had not opted to any such stations and they understood him as adamant that he should be given accommodation in London or nearby area alone, which was not found practical.
5. The reason of the applicant for such an insistence was personal. He had a disabled child, who required constant medical attention. As a matter of fact, because of this reason, he was given a posting in London so that the needs of the child could be adequately attended to. He submits that his wife was in London from 1991 onwards and in spite of his transfer outside, permission had been granted for her to continue there and it would have been advantageous for him to be transferred to London when his turn arose. It was not an adamant attitude as projected but a request on humanitarian reasons.
6. Of course, in the application, the applicant has submitted that there was some amount of arbitrariness in giving postings and good stations were reserved always in favour of persons, who had better connection with the higher ups. He also submits that finding the arbitrariness involved, he had been persistent in requesting for the details from the Department and had also made applications under the RTI Act and had approached the appellate forums and possibly this might have enraged the respondents to come up with a case that he could not have been accommodated as per his choice stations. When details were supplied by the Department by way of Paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit, it has been contended that the Ministry does not post officials to one particular region. The applicant had been given instructions to give at least four options, as required by the circulars issued by the SEB for consideration by the 189th and 190th Board meetings but he had refrained from making such applications and it was why he had been dropped from 189th and 190th Board meetings. It is also noted that as regards 191st SEB, the vigilance section of the Ministry had not cleared his names since a case of dowry has been registered against him recently.
7. Applicant points out that the reference to the criminal case was mischievous. Counsel had submitted that when his younger brother had filed a divorce petition on 18.5.2005, as a retaliation measure, his wife had in June, 2005 filed a dowry complaint and unnecessarily, applicant had been implicated by way of harassment. He had obtained anticipatory bail during August, 2005. The details had been informed over to the Department and well after the above his request had been considered by the SEB. Objection of the nature on this issue, at this stage, according to him was not comprehensible but perhaps shows presence of mala fides.
8. In the matter of transfers, especially of the nature referred to in this application, normally a Tribunal is not expected to interfere at all. A pattern has been adopted, and settled. Although the applicant has suggested that the working of the system is not satisfactory and there are favorites and non favorites, it cannot be possible for the applicant at least to contend that he had to suffer because of the arbitrariness, as alleged. This is because out of turn he had been accommodated, and he found fault with the system only after the third term. We also notice that the Ministry was sympathetic to his cause, as his wife had been permitted to remain in London for more than a decade. Also his overstay on one occasion was let off. When there is a specific advertence to a rotation, as pertaining to the norms, it may not be possible for the respondents to always oblige an individual, and relegate the claims of his colleagues to the background. In the circumstances, when it is not possible for the applicant to highlight any claims based on law, it may not be possible for him to enforce his claim through an application as at present.
9. However, we feel that the objections raised about the vigilance report which resulted in his cases being brushed aside, may not be proper or relevant. This is because such objections were not raised during the consideration of the claims even after the Department was apprised of the pending proceedings. Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that taking notice of the anxiety expressed by us, the case of the applicant will be considered positively, and to the extent the norms permits as also taking notice of the compassionate circumstances vis-`-vis the claims others might have.
10. In view of the above, we do not think any further positive orders are called for. The O.A. is closed. The claims for a posting if put up by the applicant, are to be appropriately considered, and we only direct that the presence of the FIR implicating him may not unduly be a concern of the Department to consider his claims otherwise admissible. We make no order as to costs.