Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
Arun Rs vs Department Of Personnel And Training on 12 April, 2024
-1-
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
Original Application No.180/00245/2023
along with Miscellaneous Application No.180/00297/2024
Friday this the 12th day of April 2024
CO RAM:
HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE K.HARIPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE Mr.K.V.EAPEN, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Arun.R.S.,
S/o.Radhakrishnan.K.M.,
Aged 39 years,
Chief Conservator of Forests,
High Range Circle, Kottayam.
Residing at Flat 4C, Cordial Bharathi,
Nandencode P.O., Thiruvananthapuram,
Kerala - 695 003. ...Applicant
(By Advocates Mrs.Daisy A Philipose)
versus
1. Union of India represented by the Secretary to Government,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances,
Department of Personnel & Training,
J674, VJW, North Block, Central Secretariat,
New Delhi, Delhi - 110 001.
2. Ministry of Environment & Forest,
6th Floor, Prithwi Wing, Indira Paryavaran Bhavan,
Jor Bagh Road, Ali Ganj, New Delhi - 110 003.
3. Appointment Committee of the Cabinet,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances,
Department of Personnel & Training,
J674, VJW, North Block, Central Secretariat,
New Delhi, Delhi - 110 001.
-2-
4. State of Kerala represented by its Chief Secretary,
Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram - 695 001.
5. The Principal Secretary to Government,
Department of Forest & Wildlife, Secretariat,
Thiruvananthapuram - 695 001.
6. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests
& Head of Forest Force, Kerala Forest Department,
Forest Head Quarters, Vazhuthacaud P.O.,
Thiruvananthapuram - 695 014. ...Respondents
(By Advocates Mrs.O.M.Shalina, SCGSC [R1-3]
& Mr.Baijuraj.G., Sr.GP [R4-6])
This application having been heard on 4 th April, 2024 the Tribunal
on 12th April, 2024 delivered the following :
ORDER
HON'BLE Mr.K.V.EAPEN, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER The applicant in this O.A is a direct recruit Indian Forest Service (IFS) officer of the 2009 batch of the Manipur Cadre. He is currently working in the Forest Department of the Government of Kerala on deputation from Manipur. It is submitted that Inter Cadre Deputation from Manipur Cadre to Kerala Cadre on personal grounds for a period of three years had been approved in his case. He had accordingly joined duty in the Kerala Cadre on 26.06.2020. The applicant is currently posted as the Chief Conservator of Forests, High Range Circle, Kottayam. The three years deputation period of the applicant to Kerala Cadre was thus to come to an end on 25.06.2023.
-3-
2. The applicant submits that he had made an application to the 6th respondent, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and Head of Forest Force of Kerala on 12.12.2022, vide Annexure A-2, for extension of the period of Inter-Cadre Deputation in view of certain personal grounds. He pointed out in his application at Annexure A-2 that as per paragraph 3(d) of the O.M dated 15.11.2022 issued by the Department of Personnel & Training (DoP&T) (produced by him at Annexure A-8) all cases of Inter-Cadre Deputation of All India Service officers would initially be restricted to three years, which would be extendable by two more years after review. He indicated in the application that his deputation to Kerala had been on personal grounds, related to the ailments of his father living in Kerala and the ground still persists. Moreover, he submitted that his spouse was doing a Ph.D in the 2 nd semester in Indian Institute of Space Science and Technology, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, an institution under Ministry of Space, Government of India. He also stated that it may require another three years for his spouse to complete the course and having two children aged 6 and 2 years, it would be difficult for his spouse to manage without his constant presence in Kerala.
-4-
3. It is submitted by the applicant that the 4 th respondent, the Chief Secretary, Government of Kerala, then wrote to the 2 nd respondent, the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) inviting their attention to the references cited which indicated the applicant's request dated 12.12.2022 at Annexure A-2. The Government of Kerala informed the MoEF&CC that it had no objection to granting Inter-Cadre Deputation extension to the applicant for two more years from 26.06.2023. A copy of this letter dated 14.02.2023, is produced at Annexure A-3. It is submitted that the 2 nd respondent, the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) then took up the matter with the parent cadre of the applicant, the Government of Manipur, for conveying their no objection to the proposed extension of Inter-Cadre Deputation to Kerala on personal grounds in order that the Government of India may process the matter further. It is further submitted that the Government of Manipur sent its no objection to the extension of the proposed Inter-Cadre Deputation of the applicant for another two years, in terms of the Government of India, DoP&T O.M dated 15.11.2022 (produced at Annexure A-8). A copy of the letter of the Government of Manipur dated 23.03.2023 has been produced at Annexure A-6.
-5-
4. It is submitted by the applicant that inspite of the receipt of the No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the two States it appears that the 2 nd respondent, the MoEF&CC proceeded to reject the request for extension of the Inter-Cadre Deputation. This was communicated in letter dated 24.05.2023, produced at Annexure A-7, addressed to the Government of Kerala. It was mentioned in the said letter that, as per paragraph 3(g) of Inter-Cadre Deputation policy laid down in the aforementioned O.M of the DoP&T dated 15.11.2022, a request for extension would be entertained only if it was forwarded by the State Government concerned with 'cogent reasons' and at least three months prior to the expiry of the period of deputation. In the instant case the consent of the State Government was received without any cogent reasons with less than three months time left for his deputation. It was, therefore, decided that the request for extension of Inter-Cadre Deputation of the applicant cannot be considered in the light of the aforesaid provision.
5. In this connection, the applicant submits that the 1 st respondent, DoP&T, had even earlier issued an O.M on 08.11.2004 prescribing certain conditions for availing Inter-Cadre Deputation, under which a total period of five years was permitted for Inter-Cadre Deputation. Further, on 15.11.2022 the 1st respondent, DoP&T issued the O.M at -6- Annexure A-8 regarding Inter-Cadre Deputation policy/guidelines in respect of All India Service Officers. It was stated therein that a request for extension (upto a maximum period of five years) would be entertained only if it was forwarded by the State Government concerned with 'cogent reasons' and at least three months prior to the expiry of the period of deputation. It was also provided in these guidelines that if no specific approval of the Central Government for extension was received within the period for which deputation was originally valid, the officer would have to be relieved positively and immediately on completion of the original tenure.
6. Further, it is submitted by the applicant that the DoP&T had issued separate guidelines on Inter-Cadre Deputation and Change of Cadre policy in respect of the North East Cadres vide O.M dated 05.09.2017 produced at Annexure A-9. As per this O.M., provision for Inter-Cadre Deputation from North East Cadres to Other Cadres for Male Officer was as follows : "Male Officers borne on a North East Cadre may be allowed to go on Inter Cadre Deputation to other cadres including his Home State after completion of 9 (Nine) years of actual service in the North East and not being in SAG scale (to be seen only at the time of being sent on deputation) for a maximum period of 5 (Five) years in his -7- entire career." It is also submitted that the 3rd respondent, Appointment Committee of the Cabinet, has issued orders, produced at Annexure A- 10, Annexure A-11 and Annexure A-12, by which it has approved proposals for Inter-Cadre Deputation of various officers of All India Service for periods of five years on grounds of personal hardship etc. (However, it is noted that all these orders were pertaining to the September to December 2014 period).
7. Drawing from all the above documents and orders it is the applicant's contention that the rejection by the 2 nd respondent, MoEF&CC of his case for extension of Inter-Cadre Deputation, stating that the consent of the State Government had been received without any 'cogent reasons' and with less than three months time left for his deputation to end, was highly arbitrary. It is submitted that the decision violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The applicant points to the date on which the Government of Kerala had given its NOC to his request (14.02.2022) and the date on which MoEF&CC had taken up with the Government of Manipur (22.02.2023), vide a copy produced at Annexure A-4, to establish that the matter had been taken up well in time before the expiry of the period of three months left for completion of his deputation on 26.06.2023. The applicant reiterates that his father was -8- suffering from various ailments due to old age. There was no one else to look after his aged and ailing father. His wife was doing the second semester of her Ph.D and his two children are aged 6 and 2 years which would make it difficult for his wife to manage them alone. Hence, he submits that his presence in Kerala is absolutely necessary. It is for these reasons that he had applied on 12.12.2022, vide Annexure A-2, for extending the period of Inter-Cadre Deputation by another two more years. He submits that the above reasons given by him show that there are 'cogent reasons' for extending his Inter-Cadre Deputation. Thus, the rejection of his application by the 2nd respondent, MoEF&CC, stating that the consent of the State Government had been received without any 'cogent reasons' and with less than three months time left for his deputation, shows non-application of mind and was illegal.
8. The applicant also points out that the Annexure A-9 Guidelines allow officers to go on Inter-Cadre Deputation to any other cadre including the Home State, after completion of 9 years of actual service in the North East. The requirement only was that the officer was not in SAG scale (to be seen only at the time of being sent on deputation). Such deputation was allowed for a maximum period of five years in the entire career. It is submitted by the applicant that he had completed 11 -9- years in a North East Cadre. Hence, on that ground too, he could have been considered for extension of his Inter-Cadre Deputation. It is also submitted that as per paragraph 3(g) of the Annexure A-8 Guidelines of 15.11.2022, a request for extension (up to a maximum period of five years) would be entertained only if it was forwarded by the State Government concerned with 'cogent reasons' and at least three months prior to the expiry of the period of deputation. It is submitted that where a request for extension had been forwarded in time, it would be mandatory for the concerned Cadre Controlling Authority to issue orders either way, within three months from the date of receipt of the request for extension.
9. It is further submitted that Rule 6 of the Indian Forest Service (Cadre) Rules, 1966 allows such deputation from the State Government to another State Government or even to a Company, Association or Body of individuals etc. There is no prescription in these Rules for any cogent reasons to be provided for such deputation. Since in the present case both the State Governments have given their consent for extending the Inter-Cadre Deputation of the applicant for a further period of two years from 14.02.2022, his case should have been thus considered positively by the 2nd respondent, MoEF&CC. It is pointed out that many other -10- officials had been getting approval for such deputation, as can be seen at Annexure A-10 to Annexure A-13. He submits that this Tribunal may, therefore, set aside the Annexure A-7 order and direct the respondents to extend the period of Inter-Cadre Deputation for a further period of two years in view of Annexure A-3 and Annexure A-6, which was the no objection certificate issued by the concerned State Government of Manipur. Alternatively, this Tribunal may direct the Respondent Nos.1-3 to consider and pass orders afresh on his application, in view of these no objection certificates (NOCs) issued by the concerned State Governments.
10. The applicant, in addition, has also submitted that the State Government of Kerala, while giving its no objection at Annexure A-3 dated 14.02.2023, had not quoted or specified any reasons. The State Government had just written a simple letter to the 2 nd respondent, MoEF&CC. However, this cannot be attributed to the applicant and he should not be penalized for the same. The applicant had submitted Annexure A-2 representation giving the detailed reasons as was brought out earlier. These reasons are available with all the respondents, including the 3rd respondent. It is submitted by the applicant in his rejoinder that the 3rd respondent has been extending the period of -11- deputation up to five years, in many cases of similarly situated officers. These were sometimes even in relaxation of the guidelines, as can be seen in copies of orders issued by the 3 rd respondent, Appointment Committee of the Cabinet, during 2022-23. The applicant has furnished such orders at Annexure A-14, Annexure A-15, Annexure A-16 and Annexure A-17. It is submitted that it is thus humane and equitable that similar yardsticks should be applied in his case, for the Inter-Cadre Deputation as well.
11. The respondents have filed a reply statement on 01.08.2023 in response to the O.A which had been filed on 31.05.2023. The matter first came up before this Tribunal on 01.06.2023, when it was heard by this Bench. Status Quo in respect of the applicant was ordered to be maintained till the next date of hearing. In its interim order this Tribunal also noted that a perusal of the impugned order dated 24.05.2023 produced at Annexure A-7 had revealed that the MoEF&CC had turned down the Inter-Cadre Deputation of the applicant on the ground that the consent of the State Government has been received without any cogent reasons and also since less than three months were left for his deputation when the proposal was sent. The Tribunal, however, noted that both the letters of Government of Kerala and the -12- Government of Manipur were dated more than three months before the expiry of deputation. Further, regarding the contention that no cogent reasons had been given in the letter at Annexure A-3, it was noted that letters in all such cases are sent by the Government of Kerala in the same format. The applicant had indicated that all the grounds on which he had availed his deputation to Kerala still persist. Further, he had also stated in his Annexure A-2 representation that his spouse was doing her Ph.D and required another three years to complete the course and that he had two minor children. In light of these reasons, as well as the fact that Inter-Cadre Deputation to other cadres can be allowed for male officers borne in the North East cadres for a maximum period of five years and also because of the fact that the letters from the concerned State Governments appeared to have been sent on time, it was ordered that Status Quo in respect of the applicant was required to be maintained till the next date of hearing. This interim order dated 01.06.2023 has been extended up to the present.
12. In their reply statement the respondents have submitted that the Annexure A-8 O.M dated 15.11.2022 elucidates the policy/guidelines applicable for Inter-Cadre Deputation in respect of All India Service officers. The respondents have drawn -13- particular attention to the concerned paragraphs of this letter at 3(c), 3(d), 3(e), 3(g) and 3(i). These paragraphs are brought out in full as under :
" xxxxxxxx 3(c). Inter Cadre deputations have normally been processed only in cases where individual officers have sought a deputation in view of the personal difficulties. A request for Inter Cadre Deputation will be entertained only if it is forwarded by the State Government concerned with their consent/No Objection along with the request of the officer.
3(d). All case of Inter Cadre Deputation of All India Services officers will initially be restricted to three years, extendable by two more years, after review.
3(e). The total allowable period of Inter Cadre Deputation in the entire career of the officer shall be five years. No extension of Inter Cadre Deputation beyond five years shall be allowed.
xxxxx 3(g). A request for extension (upto a maximum period of five years) will be entertained only if it is forwarded by the State Government concerned with cogent reasons and at least three months prior to the expiry of the period of deputation. In case no specific approval of the Central Government for extension is received within the period for which deputation was originally valid, the officer shall have to be relieved positively and immediately on completion of the original tenure.
xxxxxxxxxxx -14- 3(h). The Inter Cadre Deputation is valid only for the period for which it is allowed by the Central Government and any extension is neither automatic nor should it be presumed merely on the ground that the State Government concerned or officer or both had made a request to Central Government for extension. As such, the officer shall be entitled to draw salary etc. in the State to which he/she has been deputed only for the period for which he/she has been allowed deputation by the Government of India. He/she shall not be entitled to draw salary, etc. after expiry of the period of deputation. An officer on such deputation shall relinquish charge and get himself/herself relieved on the last day of his/her deputation if no orders extending his/her deputation by the concerned Cadre Controlling Authority ie., Department of Personnel and Training in the case of the Indian Administrative Service, the Ministry of Home Affairs in the case of the Indian Police Service and the Ministry of Environment and Forests in the case of the Indian Forests Service, are received in the State Government."
13. It is submitted by the respondents that the above paragraphs in the Annexure A-8 O.M makes it clear that the State Government has to provide cogent reasons at least three months prior to the expiry of the period of deputation. The MoEF&CC, which is the Cadre Controlling Authority of the applicant did not accede to the request on the basis of paragraph 3(g) of the DoP&T Guidelines above as the Government of Kerala sent the no objection in the case of the applicant without mentioning any functional requirements for his services or having any cogent reasons, as stipulated in paragraph 3(g). The guidelines also stipulated in paragraph 3(g) that if no specific approval of the Central -15- Government for extension was received within the period for which deputation was originally valid, the officer shall have to be relieved positively and immediately on completion of the original tenure. In this case, the tenure of deputation of the applicant was up to 26.06.2023. As such, he should have been relieved as on that date as per the prevalent guidelines. However, since this Tribunal, vide its interim order dated 01.06.2023, had ordered Status Quo in respect of the applicant to be maintained, he was not relieved. It is submitted that for the smooth functioning of the IFS Cadre policy guidelines framed by the DoP&T are followed. The Appointments Committee of Cabinet is the competent authority to take all decisions regarding Inter-Cadre Deputation or approval for extension of Inter-Cadre Deputation. Further, the respondents have submitted that an officer of the All India Service is expected to serve anywhere in India. The matter had been examined in terms of the policy framed by DoP&T. The letter at Annexure A-7 order dated 24.05.2023 which was under challenge in the O.A was also issued in terms of this policy.
14. The respondents later filed M.A.No.180/297/2024 on 01.04.2024 seeking to vacate the Status Quo order passed by this Tribunal on 01.06.2023. The M.A was heard on 04.04.2024. After hearing -16- both counsel, it was decided to reserve the matter for orders in the O.A itself as all issues were brought forth. In the M.A for vacation of the Status Quo order, it was submitted by the respondents in the O.A that the Annexure A-8 guidelines clearly provide that any request for extension of Inter-Cadre Deputation for a further period of two years can only be approved only after review. The 2 nd respondent, MoEF&CC, was the competent authority to take a final call on approving such extensions, based on sufficient and convincing reasons put forward by the officer seeking extension. It was submitted that the mere fact of obtaining NOCs from the respective State Governments will not suo motu vest a legal right on the officer for claiming extension. It was submitted that the Annexure A-3 letter of the 4 th respondent did not consist of any cogent reasons for extending the services of the applicant in Kerala, based on which the NOC was granted. The DoP&T guidelines clearly provide that such cogent reasons have to be stated. In fact, it is also provided that if specific approval of the Central Government for extension was not received within the period for which deputation was originally valid, the officer has to be relieved positively and immediately on completion of the original tenure.
-17-
15. The respondents also point to paragraph 3(i) of the Annexure A-8 guidelines, which validates that Inter-Cadre Deputations are only for a period for which it is allowed by the Central Government. It is provided that any extension is neither automatic nor should it be presumed merely on the ground that the State Government concerned or officer both had made a request to Central Government for extension. Thus, these guidelines provide that the decision to extend the deputation of officers on their application solely lies on the discretion of the Central Government. The mere grant of an NOC by the State Governments does not render any automatic extension of the tenure of deputation. It is submitted that, even going by the Annexure A-2 request for extension, the applicant has not stated any cogent reason for extension. Academic or educational requirements of a spouse is not a matter of exigency. Further, the applicant has not mentioned any urgent medical reasons with respect to his father other than age related ailments. Thus, for these reasons, it was clear that Annexure A-3 NOC of the 4 th respondent, Government of Kerala, had been issued without application of mind.
16. It is submitted by the respondents in this context that it is crucial to mention that Government servants are serving all over the country. All of them would have to deal with diverse family circumstances. Other -18- than in situations of dire or extreme hardships, the administration cannot be expected to settle personal grievances of the employees. It is reiterated that paragraph 3(g) of the guidelines provide that if no specific approval has been granted by the Central Government, the officer is to be relieved with immediate effect on completion of tenure. In fact, in the case of the applicant, the respondents had gone one step further as a specific order of rejection was issued vide Annexure A-7, before the expiry of the tenure of the applicant. Thus, Annexure A-7 letter has been issued strictly in consonance with the Annexure A-8 guidelines and is in full satisfaction of administrative requirements. It is submitted by the respondents that the applicant seems to have been falsely led to believe that there was an inherent legal right for him to be granted extension. On the contrary, the applicant has only an inherent right to request for extension, which will be finally reviewed and decided by the 2 nd respondent based on the reasons furnished by him as well as on the basis of the reasons stated by the State Government for considering granting the extension of his deputation service. In the case of the applicant, as pointed out earlier, the reasons stated in his representation, do not reflect any extreme hardship or exigency in the family. Further, the Annexure A-10 to Annexure A-13 orders approving deputation of other officers, based on which the applicant states that he is similarly situated cannot be -19- cited as a comparison. The contentions raised by the applicant in such comparisons are baseless, illogical and irrational since the request for deputation or extension of Inter-Cadre Deputation of All India Service officers are done on a case to case basis. There is no blanket applicability of any rules or provisions entitling them for grant of such requests ipso facto. Hence, it is prayed in the M.A that the Tribunal vacate the interim order dated 01.06.2023 granted to the applicant in the O.A., as the respondents will be put to irreparable hardship and administrative difficulty if it is not done so.
17. We have carefully considered the above contentions of the respondents contained in their reply statement as well as in the M.A for vacation of the interim relief. We have also equally carefully considered the contentions made by the applicant and have also heard learned counsel for the applicant, Smt.Daisy A Philipose as well as learned SCGSC for the Respondent Nos.1-3, Smt.O.M.Shalina along with learned Senior GP for the Respondent Nos.4-6, Shri.Baijuraj.G. We have also perused the Annexure A-8 guidelines carefully, particularly in respect of paragraphs 3(c), 3(d), 3(e), 3(g) and 3(i), which have been brought out earlier. At the outset there is no disagreement with the contention of the respondents that ultimately it is for the Cadre -20- Controlling Authority in the Central Government, which in this case is the Ministry of Environment, Forests & Climate Change to take the final decision in relation to matters of Inter-Cadre Deputation along with the 3rd respondent, Appointments Committee of Cabinet, in case it feels that approval for extension of deputation is warranted. The applicant is a Indian Forest Service officer belonging to Manipur Cadre. In other words, his parent cadre is the State of Manipur. He came to his home State of Kerala only on deputation, which by the rules is allowed for a certain specific approved period of time as brought out by the respondents. We cannot find any rule that an initial period of deputation for three years will inevitably have to lead to a further deputation period of another two years even if total deputation period of 5 years is permissible. It is for the Government of India, specifically for the Cadre Controlling Authority and the Appointment Committee of Cabinet, to decide all issues in relation to deputation tenure including its extension or even cutting short. The State Governments concerned ie., the lending parent State (Government of Manipur) and the receiving home State (Government of Kerala) can have no further role other than what is provided as per the guidelines. Their No Objection to the proposal is just but one step in the process.
-21-
18. The Government asking for further extension (Government of Kerala) has also to provide cogent reasons as to why the extension is required. For whatever reasons, it appears that the Government of Kerala sent a proforma NOC in the case of the applicant, without specifying any reasons. There were no reasons provided in relation to why the services of the applicant were required on a professional basis within the Forest Department of the Government of Kerala. In terms of personal reasons, even if one considers the representation at Annexure A-2 as fulfilling the requirement of providing 'cogent reasons', we view these reasons as extremely mild and quite normal in case of all officers serving different parts of the country away from their home. The reasons do not appear to establish cogently any specific hardship or extreme difficulties is well brought out in the contentions of the respondents. Thus, we would tend to agree that these reasons by themselves do not sufficiently amount for a convincing case for extension of his tenure.
19. On the other hand, we observe that it is for the applicant to make peace with his allotted cadre and to provide his undoubtedly professional service in his parent cadre of allotment, the Government of Manipur. In addition, neither the cadre rules such as Indian Forest Service (Cadre) Rules, 1966 provide any legal right to the applicant. These Rules only -22- provided that the Central Government has to concur in cases of deputation of IFS Officers from one State to another State. Thus, as brought out by the respondents, applicant can at best only have a right to request for extension, which will have to be reviewed and decided by the Govt. of India based on the reasons furnished by him as well the reasons stated by the State Government. These reasons, as we have noted, do not seem to be strong enough to establish that the decision of the Central Government, vide Annexure A-7, turning down the extension of his deputation was arbitrary or erroneous. Even if we do not agree with the contentions in Annexure A-7 that the proposal for extension of deputation was not sent within the due time, prior to the expiry of the three months period of initial deputation, the overall facts and circumstances and details brought out above do not establish sufficient clear or cogent reasons for further extension. We also note that there is nothing which provides for the Govt. of India to specify such reasons for turning down or even approving extension of such deputation periods. This is evidenced from the orders of the 3 rd respondent, Appointment Committee of Cabinet, provided by the applicant himself. It is, as was stated, at the end of the day, a decision of the Govt. of India which can be taken in each case depending on the facts and circumstances therein and there are no further reasons that have to be provided. -23-
20. In view of the above considerations, we are not in a position to allow the relief prayed for by the applicant in the O.A. We note that the applicant has already managed to serve for almost an additional 10 months from the date of completion of his initial deputation on the strength of our interim order of Status Quo. This, we make it clear, cannot be considered as an over stay etc. in terms of the guidelines since it was specifically allowed by this Tribunal in terms of its order passed on 01.06.2023. However, the respondents are allowed to pass necessary follow up orders in relation to the applicant in light of the decision not to allow the relief sought in the O.A. This decision also obviously implies that the interim order passed on 01.06.2023 stands vacated. However, it is again made clear that no action should be taken against the applicant for any over stay etc., in light of our considerations mentioned above.
21. The O.A is accordingly dismissed. The M.A.No.180/297/2024 is also accordingly closed in light of the above. We make no order as to costs.
(Dated this the 12th day of April, 2024)
K.V.EAPEN JUSTICE K.HARIPAL
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
asp
-24-
List of Annexures in O.A No.180/00245/2023
1. Annexure-A1 : A copy of the Order No.4/23/2012-IFS/DP issued to the petitioner by the Joint Secretary to the Government of Manipur, Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms.
2. Annexure-A2 : A copy of the Letter No.CCF (HRC/Per./2022) dated 12.12.2022 submitted by the applicant before the 6 th respondent.
3. Annexure-A3 : A copy of the Letter No.AIS-B2/87/2022-GAD dated 14.02.2023 issued by the 4th respondent to the 2nd respondent.
4. Annexure-A4 : A copy of the Letter No.17016/03/2019-IFS-I dated 22.02.2023 issued by the 2 nd respondent to the Chief Secretary of Government of Manipur.
5. Annexure-A5 : A copy of the Letter No.2/19/2011-18/Forests dated 14.02.2023 issued by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and Head of Forest Force, Forest Department, Manipur to the Deputy Secretary (Forest and Environment), Manipur.
6. Annexure-A6 : A copy of the Letter No.DEP-3/1/2021-DP-DP dated 23.03.2023 addressed to the 2 nd respondent by the Deputy Secretary, Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms, Manipur.
7. Annexure-A7 : A copy of the Letter No.17016/03/2019-IFS-I dated 24.05.2023 issued by the 2nd respondent to the applicant.
8. Annexure-A8 : A copy of the Letter No.13017/28/2022-AIS-I dated 15.11.2022 issued by the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances, Department of Personnel & Training.
9. Annexure-A9 : A copy of the Guidelines No.13017/16/2003- AIS-I dated 05.089.2017 issued by the 1st respondent.
10. Annexure-A10 : A copy of the O.M.No.37/19/2014-EO(SM-I) dated 13.09.2014 issued by the 1st respondent.
11. Annexure-A11 : A copy of the O.M.No.37/33/2014-EO(SM-I) dated 05.12.2014 issued by the 1st respondent.
-25-
12. Annexure-A12 : A copy of the O.M.No.37/50/2014-EO(SM-I) dated 05.12.2014 issued by the 1st respondent.
13. Annexure-A13 : A copy of the O.M.No.37/20/2018 dated 29.01.2022 issued by the 1st respondent.
14. Annexure-A14 : A copy of the Office Memorandum bearing No.6/31/2022-EO(SM-I) dated 31.07.2022 issued by the 3 rd respondent.
15. Annexure-A15 : A copy of the Office Memorandum bearing No.37/1/2015-EO(SM-I) dated 18.02.2023 issued by the 3 rd respondent.
16. Annexure-A16 : A copy of the Office Memorandum bearing No.37/27/2020-EO (SM-I) dated 24.04.2023 issued by the 3 rd respondent.
17. Annexure-A17 : A copy of the Office Memorandum bearing No.28020/24/2013-AIS(1) dated 31.10.2023 issued by the 1 st respondent.
_______________________________