Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shri R.K. Doomra vs Union Of India (Uoi) Through The ... on 15 November, 2007
ORDER Meera Chhibber, Member (J)
1. By this O.A., applicant has sought direction to Respondents to make payment of TTA Bills and Composite Transfer Grant.
2. Brief facts of the case are that applicant while working as Assistant Engineer (E) in the Office of Executive Engineer (E), Jaisalmer, received an Office Order dated 01.10.2005 whereby he was relieved in public interest from that Division w.e.f. 01.10.2005 to report to Superintending Engineer, Coordination Circle (E), CPWD, New Delhi for further posting orders.
3. It is stated by applicant that in compliance of said order, he proceeded to Delhi and submitted his joining report on 05.10.2005 in the Office of Superintending Engineer, Coordination Circle (E), CPWD, R.K. Puram, New Delhi. It was after about a month that he received another Office Order dated 02.11.2005 whereby he was directed to report back to Executive Engineer (E), Jaisalmer, since his joining in the Office was without proper order of transfer. Once again applicant complied with the order and reported back at Jaisalmer and submitted his joining report on 7.11.2005 to the Executive Engineer (E), Jaisalmer. After joining there, he submitted his Transfer TA bill to the tune of Rs. 35,854/-, viz. Rs. 17,618/- for first journey from Jaisalmer to Delhi and Rs. 18,236/- for second journey from Delhi to Jaisalmer. The said claim was rejected by Superintending Engineer (E), Jaisalmer, on the ground that his joining report was not accepted by S.E., Coordination Elect. Circle, New Delhi. Accordingly, applicant was asked to submit fresh claim treating the TTA claim as 'Temporary Transfer' as per provisions contained in Govt. of India Decision No. 2 below SR-114. Being aggrieved, applicant preferred representations to the Chief Engineer and also to the Director General (Works), CPWD, but since no reply was received, he had no other option but to file the present O.A.
4. It is also stated by applicant that since he had proceeded on transfer in compliance to the order issued by competent authority and the intention of the authority was clear from the order that he was to be transferred out resulting into change of Headquarter/Station along with change of residence, therefore, he is entitled to Transfer TA; whereas respondents have stated that since it was not a case of regular transfer and he was returned back within a period of 37 days, it has to be treated as temporary transfer. They have stated that normally transfer could be made after 2 years, but in the instant case applicant was relieved prematurely due to his activities which were unbecoming of a Government servant, therefore, Transfer TA cannot be given to him. However, they have stated that applicant was relieved with the approval of Chief Engineer, but the Cadre Controlling Authority, i.e. Superintending Engineer (E), Coordination Circle, CPWD, Delhi did not accept applicant's relieving.
5. I have heard both the parties and perused the pleadings as well. It goes without saying that once proper order in writing was issued, relieving applicant with the direction to report to Superintending Engineer (Cord.) at Delhi, that too with the approval of competent authority, i.e. Chief Engineer, he had no other option but to comply with the said order, otherwise he would have been dealt with departmentally for non-compliance of direction amounting to misconduct. From the reply filed by respondents and also from the first order of relieving the applicant, it is clear that Executive Engineer (E) issued the order of his relieving with the approval of competent authority, i.e. the Chief Engineer. The intention is also clear from the reply filed by respondents and the note submitted by the Executive Engineer that applicant was being relieved with the clear intention that he should be transferred out of Jaisalmer to a non-sensitive post/place. Once the Chief Engineer had approved the proposal that applicant should be relieved, it is not understood as to how Superintending Engineer, who is subordinate to the Chief Engineer, could take a different stand nor has it been explained by the respondents except saying that Cadre Controlling Authority was Superintending Engineer (E). If Cadre Controlling Authority is Superintending Engineer (E), then they have not explained how the proposal was approved by the Chief Engineer to relieve applicant for being posted elsewhere. It is a clear cut case where different views have been expressed by different officers, therefore, it is an internal matter of the Department. The fact remains that when applicant was relieved from Jaisalmer to Delhi, the charge was handed over by him involving change of headquarter/station as also his residence, therefore, he rightly claimed transfer TA. On rejection of same, applicant had already preferred representation to the Chief Engineer, who would have been the proper authority to resolve the issue because it was with his approval that applicant had been relieved from Jaisalmer to Delhi. Admittedly, the Chief Engineer or even the Director General (Works) had not passed any order on the representations of the applicant. It is also correct that in Delhi applicant was not allowed to take over the charge, nor he had handed over any charge in Delhi. Therefore, his claim for Transfer TA from Delhi to Jaisalmer may not be admissible, but as far as his claim for TTA from Jailsalmer to Delhi is concerned, it does seem that applicant has a case. It is also relevant to note that while relieving the applicant, it was not mentioned in the order that he was being relieved for temporary duty; on the contrary it was obvious that he was being relieved for being transferred to some other non-sensitive post or area.
6. In these circumstances, the OA is disposed off with the direction to the Chief Engineer to consider the representation of the applicant in view of the observations as made above and to decide the same by passing a reasoned and speaking order under intimation to the applicant. This shall be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly OA is disposed off. There shall be no order as to costs.