Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sagar vs Home Affairs on 13 February, 2023
1 O.A. No.3290 of 2022
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No.3290 of 2022
Orders reserved on : 03.02.2023
Orders pronounced on : 13.02.2023
Hon'ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Sanjeeva Kumar, Member (A)
Sagar, IPS (WB: 2019)
Aged about 27 years,
S/o Mr. Bhagwan Krishan,
R/o Sonipat, Haryana,
Presently posted as Sub Divisional Police Officer,
Kandi, Murshidabad,
West Bengal - 742137.
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Shri M.K. Bhardwaj)
VERSUS
1. Union of India,
through its Secretary,
Ministry of Home Affairs,
Govt. of India,
North Block, New Delhi-110001.
2. Govt. of West Bengal,
through its Chief Secretary,
Govt. of West Bengal,
Nabanna (13th Floor)
325, Sarat Chatterjee Road,
Shibpur,
Howrah-711102.
...Respondents
(By Advocates: Shri S.N. Verma for R-1 and Shri Shreyas
Awasthi for Sri Ravinder Singh for R-2)
2 OA No.3290/2022
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J):
In the instant Original Application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant is aggrieved by non-grant of 'No Objection Certificate' for change of his cadre from West Bengal Cadre to Rajasthan Cadre, which he has requested on the ground of his marriage with an IPS:RJ:2019, namely, Ms. Ranjeeta Sharma, who is posted on account of allotment of Rajasthan Cadre by the competent authority.
2. The relevant facts for adjudication of the issue involved in the instance case are that the applicant is an IPS Officer of 2019 Batch and was allotted West Bengal Cadre. He got married to Ms. Ranjeeta Sharma, IPS:RJ:2019 on 28th November 2021. In view of his marriage, the applicant became eligible for request for change of his Cadre in the IPS from West Bengal to Rajasthan as per the OM dated 8.11.2004 of Govt. of India, DoP&T (Annexure A5) regarding 'Change of Cadre of All India Service Officers-Policy'. Accordingly, the applicant made a representation/application dated 4.1.2022 (Annexure A-2) for change of cadre on marriage ground in 3 OA No.3290/2022 terms of the aforesaid Policy from West Bengal Cadre to Rajasthan Cadre and the representation/ application was duly forwarded to Ministry of Home Affairs. The respondent No.1, i.e., Ministry of Home Affairs sent a letter dated 3.3.2022 (Annexure A-3) to respondent No.2, i.e., Govt. of West Bengal to offer view/comments on the aforesaid request of the applicant on an early date to take further action in the matter without any delay. Similar letter was sent to Govt. of Rajasthan and in turn, the Govt. of Rajasthan conveyed its consent with the proposal letter dated 11.4.2022 (Annexure A-4). However, despite a lapse of more than seven months and in spite of the fact that similarly placed persons were granted the same in due course and also the fact that the State of Rajasthan has granted NOC but the Govt. of Bengal, i.e., respondent no.2 did not issue the said requested NOC. As each passing day is causing prejudice to the applicant as the same is affecting the applicant's family. The applicant was blessed with a daughter on 26.7.2022, however, due to delay caused by the respondent no.2, the applicant could not join his wife to extend required help and share love and affection, being father of newly born child. Being aggrieved, the applicant has filed the present OA under 4 OA No.3290/2022 Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, citing the judgments of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as well as of this Tribunal in support of his claim, for seeking the following reliefs:-
"(i) To declare the action of respondent no.2 in delaying the NOC and thereby delaying the joining of applicant in Rajasthan Cadre as illegal and issue appropriate directions to Respondent No. 2 to issue NOC and relieve the applicant to join the Rajasthan Cadre.
(ii) To direct the respondents to complete the requisite exercise of change of cadre of applicant from West Bengal to State of Rajasthan without any delay and by following the same analogy as followed in the case of Arsh Verma, Bhavna Gupta, Loganayagi Divya V. and Gandharva Rathore.
(iii) Such other and further order which their Lordships of this Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and proper may please be passed."
3. Pursuant to notice from this Tribunal, both the respondents have filed their counter replies.
4. In the reply filed on behalf of respondent no.1, it is submitted that the applicant is an All India Service officer belonging to the Indian Police Service. The concept of All India Services finds place in the Constitution of India vide Article 312 of the Constitution of India. It is further asserted that there are two separate quota within the 5 OA No.3290/2022 Indian Police Service-Direct Recruitment Quota and Promotion Quota. The Direct Recruitment Quota is filled through Civil Services Examination conducted annually by the Union Public Service Commission and the Promotion Quota is filled by the promotion from the State Police Services as per the provisions of IPS Appointment by Promotion Regulation 1955. The instant case is related to inter-cadre transfer of an IPS Officer recruited in the service under the provisions of the Indian Police Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954. Consequent upon appointment of an individual to the Indian Police Service, the members of the service continue to serve in the service under the Government of India or a State as envisaged in the Article 312 of the Constitution of India. The cases of inter-cadre transfer of Indian Police Service officers are governed by Rule 5 (2) of the Indian Police Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954, and the guidelines issued by the DoP&T. That the Rule 5 (2) of the Rules ibid provides that the Central Government may, with the concurrence of the State Governments concerned, transfer a cadre officer from one cadre to another cadre and the enabling provisions regarding inter- cadre transfer have been issued by the DoP&T vide their Office Memorandum Nu.13017/16/2003-AIS (I) dated 6 OA No.3290/2022 8.11.2004 and No.DOPT-1668410262661 dated 11.11.2022, which provides as under:-
"(i) Inter-cadre transfer shall continue to be permitted for members of All India Service officers on marriage to another member of an All India Service, where the officer or officers concerned have sought a change. Inter-cadre transfer shall also be permitted on grounds of extreme hardship in the rarest of cases.
(ii) Inter-cadre transfer shall not be permitted to the home State of the officer.
(iii) In cases of inter-cadre transfer on grounds of marriage, efforts should be made in the first instance to ensure that the cadre of one officer accepts his or her spouse.
(iv) Only in instances where both States have refused to accept the other spouse will the officers be considered for transfer by the Government of India to a third cadre subject to the consent of the Cadres concerned for such transfer."
4.1 The respondent No.1 has also stated that the above request of the applicant was examined and as a pre- requisite to enable to process the case further the views/comments of Governments of West Bengal and Rajasthan were sought vide letter dated 3.3.2022. Although Govt. of Rajasthan vide their letter dated 11.4.2022 conveyed their No Objection on the request of the officer, however, Govt. of West Bengal has not yet responded to the aforesaid letter dated 3.3.2022 wherein 7 OA No.3290/2022 the State Government of West Bengal was requested to offer their views/comments on the above request of the applicant. Rule 5(2) of the Rules ibid, provides that the Central Government may, with the concurrence of the State Governments concerned, transfer a cadre officer from one cadre to another cadre, the case of the applicant could not be processed in the absence of No Objection from the parent cadre of the applicant, i.e., State Government of West Bengal as the applicant is borne on West Bengal Cadre and therefore, the onus of granting No Objection for inter-cadre transfer to the applicant lies on the West Bengal cadre. They have further asserted that in cases of inter-cadre transfer on grounds of marriage, efforts should be made in the first instance to ensure that the cadre of one officer accepts his or her spouse. But herein in the absence of the views/comments of the West Bengal, it is difficult to ascertain as to whether the West Bengal Government, i.e., the Respondent No.2 herein intends to grant No Objection to the applicant or otherwise provisions of the policy will come into place and then the wife of the applicant would have the option of seeking inter-cadre transfer to West Bengal cadre. As such no action is pending on the part of the respondent No.1 and 8 OA No.3290/2022 that the request of the applicant for inter-cadre transfer would be processed further immediately after the views/comments are received from the West Bengal Cadre.
5. In the reply filed on behalf of respondent N.2, although above facts have not been disputed, however, it is asserted that Rule 5 (2) of the Rules ibid clearly depicts that the same applies to either of the spouses in the IPS cadre and not only to the husband. Essentially, the applicant's wife being an All India Service Officer is also entitled to seek transfer under the aforesaid provision. The respondent No.2 after due consideration has regretted to inform that cadre transfer from West Bengal to Rajasthan Cadre would not be possible on account of acute shortage of IPS Officers in the State Cadre as the Cadre strength of IPS Officers in the State of West Bengal is 387 while the actual number of IPS officers presently in position is 300 only. It is also submitted that the word 'may' appearing in the aforesaid Rule 15 (2) of the Rules ibid signifies the exercise of power is discretionary in nature and therefore, the State Government is not bound to give concurrence to any proposal of Central Government in the aforesaid context. Rule 5 of the Rules ibid was construed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India vs. V. Rajiv Yadav, 9 OA No.3290/2022 IAS & others, reported in 1994 6 SCC 38, wherein Hon'ble Court was of the view that cadre allocation is an incident of the service and not a right of the applicant. The aforesaid position was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India vs. Mhathung Kithan, reported in (1996) 10 SCC 562. In this regard, respondent No.2 has also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Official Liquidators vs. Dharti Dhan, reported in 1977 (2) SCC 177. It is also stated that in the case of Ajit Singh Singhvi vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in (1991) Supp. 1 SCC 343, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
"12. ... The view of the Government in maintaining that the super time scale posts are highest posts is not only a bare and literal interpretation given by it to the Rules but also is reflective of its policy in this regard and no decision needs to be given by the Court in normal circumstances to amend or alter such policy. In such a realm even contemporaneous exposition of a similar rule in another set of rules cannot play their part to influence either the Court or the Government to give the same interpretation or exposition to the Rules requiring interpretation herein..."
5.1 The respondent no.2 has also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 6.9.2021 in the case of Namrata Verma vs. the State of Uttar 10 OA No.3290/2022 Pradesh & others in SLP (C) No.36717/2017 wherein it is held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that :
"..Itis not for the employee to insist to transfer him/her and/or not to transfer him/her at a particular place. It is for the employer to transfer an employee considering the requirement..."
5.2 It is also asserted that the main spirit of the aforesaid guidelines of the DoP&T dated 8.11.2004 is to keep the marriage couple in one place but it does not confer any right to the officer to demand for any specific cadre. Moreover, there cannot be a rigid exposition that it would apply to the Husband only.
6. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the applicant at the outset submitted that the case of the applicant is squarely covered by the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Gandharva Rathore vs. Union of India and others in OA No.3579/2019 dated 4.12.2019 which was not only affirmed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition No.4048/2021 vide Order/Judgment dated 28.5.2021 but also directed the State of West Bengal to relieve the concerned Officer within eight weeks and further in the event, the concerned Officer was not relieved within the aforesaid stipulated period, the concerned 11 OA No.3290/2022 Officer shall be deemed to have been relieved by virtue of the Order of the Hon'ble High Court. He has further submitted that subsequently the similar issue was again decided by this Tribunal in favour of the applicant therein on 26.10.2021 in OA No.1187/2021, titled Arsh Verma vs. Union of India and others, which was decided by this Tribunal by relying upon the aforesaid order/judgment of this Tribunal in the case of Gandharva Rathore (supra) as well as subsequent decision of this Tribunal in Lakshmi Bhavya Tanneeru v. Union of India & others (O.A. No.1299/2020) decided on 02.02.2021, the decision of this Tribunal in Arsh Verma (supra) was challenged by the Govt. of West Bengal before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide Writ Petition (Civil) No.2262/2022 and the same was also dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court vide Order/Judgment dated 7.4.2022 with further similar direction as was given in the case of Gandharva Rathore (supra). On the strength of the aforesaid Orders/Judgments of this Tribunal as well as of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as well as subsequent Orders/Judgments of this Tribunal in OA No.2061/2021, titled Renu Sogan vs. Union of India and another, dated 31.8.2022, OA No.1487/2021, titled Tushar 12 OA No.3290/2022 Singla vs. Union of India and another, decided on 31.8.2022 and in OA 1680/2022, titled Akshat Garg vs. Union of India and another, decided on 1.2.2023, learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the contentions of the learned counsel for respondent no.2 as noted hereinabove had been considered and rejected by this Tribunal as well as by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court (supra). Learned counsel for the applicant has also placed on record a copy of the Order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of the State of West Bengal vs. Reenu Joshi and another (Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.15914/2021 and other connected SLP, dated 22.3.2022 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that '...Since we are refusing to pass an interim order in favour of the petitioner-State, the State should take steps to implement the impugned order qua respondent - Lakshmi Bhavya Tanneeru, within four weeks...'. He has further submitted that once the similar issue in a catena of cases has already been decided by this Tribunal and affirmed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, the act of the respondent no.2 in not issuing No Objection certification amounts to discriminatory treatment meted out to the applicant in the present case which is clearly in violation 13 OA No.3290/2022 of the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of P.K. & Ors. Vs. V.K. Kapoor & Anr., reported in JT 2007 (12) 439, and U.P. & Ors. Vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava & Ors., reported in (2015) 1 SCC 347. Learned counsel for the applicant has also placed on record the copies of notifications at pages 93 to 104 of the OA whereby cadre transfer was done.
7. On the other hand, while reiterating the submissions as recorded in their countere reply and noted hereinabove, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1, has submitted that no action is pending on the part of the respondent No.1 and the request of the applicant for inter- cadre transfer would be processed further immediately after the views/comments are received from the West Bengal Cadre.
8. Learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2 has reiterated the submissions as noted hereinabove. However, he again stressed that in Rule 5 (2) of the Rules ibid, the word 'may' signifies that the exercise of power is discretionary in nature and as such the State Government is not bound to give concurrence to any proposal of Central Government having regard to the administrative reasons. As there is an acute shortage of IPS Officers in 14 OA No.3290/2022 the West Bengal Cadre, the Govt. of West Bengal has regretted to grant No Objection to the request of the applicant for his cadre transfer from West Bengal to Rajasthan Cadre.
9. In rebuttal to the aforesaid contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2, learned counsel for the applicant has drawn our attention to the rejoinder filed on behalf of the applicant in which he has also annexed a copy of the Writ Petition filed by the respondent no.2 in the matter of Arsh Verma (supra) (Annexure RJ-3) to contend that all the grounds as raised in the instant OA have been considered and rejected by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi while deciding the said Writ Petition.
10. We have carefully gone through the pleadings available on record and taken the submissions made on behalf of the parties into consideration.
11. The facts as noted in para 2 above are not in dispute. So far as respondent no.1 is concerned, having regard to the reply and submissions made on behalf of respondent no.1, the said respondent is ready to consider the case of 15 OA No.3290/2022 the applicant immediately subject to receipt of views/comments of the State Government of West Bengal, i.e., respondent no.2. The grounds for not issuing No Objection to the applicant as raised in the instant case by the respondent no.2 have already been dealt with by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court recently also in Arsh Verma (supra), the relevant portion of the said Order/Judgment reads as under:-
"4. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that:
i) there is an extreme shortage of officers since a number of officers have sought transfer from West Bengal Cadre on various grounds, including the ground on account of their marriage to officers belonging to other State cadres; ii) the petitioner is a male and there are no urgencies of duties towards the family which could require the State to relieve him and iii) it is the discretion of the State to do so in light of the fact that there is a shortage of officers in the State.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 submits that the respondent has not been able to start a family, as his wife is posted in a different State, nor is he able to take care of his family and his ailing widowed mother; he says that he needs to be stationed at the same place as them. He further submits that while deciding such cases, the authorities may well keep it in mind that the young officers, who are stationed at different places having different State Cadres will find it difficult to even start their family.
6. The learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 submits that the issue raised by the petitioner in the present case is no longer res integra and the same has been decided by the various judgments of this Court.
16 OA No.3290/2022
7. The issue raised in this petition stands decided against the petitioner herein by way of the following Division Bench judgments:
(i) In Bhavna Gupta vs. The Union of India & Ors., [W.P.(C) No. 13444/2019 decided on 3.02.2020]:
The relevant portion of the same is reproduced herein below:-
"11. Reading of the above-cited Government Policy leaves no room for doubt that the same would apply to the petitioner. The petitioner waited patiently for two years after making her first representation to the State of West Bengal; and only after having received no response did she approach the Tribunal. The Tribunal granted six weeks time to the State of West Bengal to consider the petitioner's representation; however no response has yet been received to that representation.
xxx xxx xxx
13. Counsel for the State of West Bengal now submits that a 'No Objection' cannot be granted in view of certain proceedings pending before the Calcutta High Court. With the highest regard for the Calcutta High Court and with full deference to the comity of courts, we have queried counsel for the State of West Bengal to point-out any order where the Calcutta High Court has restrained the transfer of the petitioner; or by which the petitioner has been ordered to remain present in court; or any order to even show that the petitioner's presence is necessary in West Bengal for the proceedings pending in court. No such order or direction or requirement has been brought to our notice.
xxx xxx xxx
16. In view of the above, we dispose of this petition directing that the petitioner be relieved within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order."17 OA No.3290/2022
(ii) In Ms. Loganayagi Divya V. vs. Union of India & Ors., [WP(C) No.3927/2020 decided on 22.7.2020}.
It was directed inter alia, as under:-
"4. In our view, there can be absolutely no justification for the State of West Bengal not relieving the petitioner to enable her to join the IPS Cadre in the State of Odisha. This shows complete apathy on the part of the State of West Bengal - which cannot be countenanced. We are left with no alternative, but to issue directions to enable the petitioner to join her post in the IPS Cadre in the State of Odisha.
5. Accordingly, we declare that the petitioner stands forthwith relieved from her post in the IPS Cadre of the State of West Bengal. No further orders would be required to be passed by the State of West Bengal in this regard. We direct the State of Odisha to treat this order as a relieving order of the petitioner to enable her to join her post in the IPS Cadre in the State of Odisha."
(iii) In The State of West Bengal vs. Raj Karan Nayyar & Anr., [WP(C) No.11966/2018 decided on 02.11.2018).
It was directed, inter alia, as under:-
"Considering the overall circumstance, we grant time to the petitioner up to 28.02.2019 to relieve the respondent No.1 so that he can join his services with the State of U.P. It is made clear that no further extension shall be sought or granted and, in case, no express order is passed relieving the respondent No.1 from his services by the State of West Bengal, he shall be deemed to have been relieved on 28.02.2019 and it shall be open to him to join the services with the State of U.P.
8. Keeping in view the aforesaid mandate of law, the present writ petition is dismissed and the State of West Bengal is directed to relieve the respondent 18 OA No.3290/2022 no. 1 within eight weeks. In the event, the respondent no. 1 is not relieved within the aforesaid stipulated period, she shall be deemed to have been relieved by virtue of the order of this Court."
8. In a recent judgment in the case of S K Nausad Rahaman & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 297, a similar issue arose and the Supreme Court has observed as under:-
"...55. The State in the present case has been guided by two objectives: first, the potential for abuse of ICTs and second, the distortion which is caused in service leading to plethora of litigation. The State while formulating a policy for its own employees has to give due consideration to the importance of protecting family life as an element of the dignity of the person and a postulate of privacy. How a particular policy should be modulated to take into account the necessities of maintaining family life may be left at the threshold to be determined by the State. In crafting its policy however the State cannot be heard to say that it will be oblivious to basic constitutional values, including the preservation of family life which is an incident of Article 21.
56. The circular dated 20 September 2018 has taken into account, what it describes "exceptional circumstances" such as "extreme compassionate grounds". Leaving these categories undefined, the circular allows for individual cases to be determined on their merits on a case by case basis, while prescribing that transfers on a "loan basis" may be allowed subject to administrative requirements with a tenure of three years, extendable by a further period of two years. While proscribing ICTs which envisage absorption into a cadre of a person from a distinct cadre, the circular permits a transfer for a stipulated period on a loan basis. Whether such a provision should be suitably enhanced to specifically include cases involving:19 OA No.3290/2022
(i) postings of spouses;
(ii) disabled persons; or
(iii) compassionate transfers, is a matter which should be considered at a policy level by the Board.
57. In considering whether any modification of the policy is necessary, they must bear in mind the need for a proportional relationship between the objects of the policy and the means which are adopted to implement it. The policy above all has to fulfil the test of legitimacy, suitability, necessity and of balancing the values which underlie a decision making process informed by constitutional values. Hence while we uphold the judgment of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, we leave it open to the respondents to revisit the policy to accommodate posting of spouses, the needs of the disabled and compassionate grounds. Such an exercise has to be left within the domain of the executive, ensuring in the process that constitutional values which underlie Articles 14, 15 and 16 and Article 21 of the Constitution are duly protected...."
9. It may be noted here that in the present case, the petitioner had already obtained a No Objection Certificate vide letter dated 20.08.2019 whereby the State of Haryana conveyed its agreement for the transfer of the Respondent no. 1 to the Haryana cadre where his wife is posted as an IPS Officer. However, despite repeated requests, his representation has been turned down and a No Objection Certificate has not been granted by the State of West Bengal.
10. Keeping in view, the mandate of law as discussed above, the right to a healthy family life, to start a family and the right to parenthood have to be respected while balancing the careers and duties of the officers concerned. Time and tide wait for none. Child-bearing age for the young couple should not be irretrievably prejudiced by the non-grant of a 20 OA No.3290/2022 relieving order for the officers to start their family. Compassion is expected from the State.
11. The urgency of the present case is of starting a family at present, which cannot wait indefinitely depending upon the decision of the concerned authorities.
12. The present writ petition along with the application is dismissed and the State of West Bengal is directed to relieve the respondent no. 1 within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the event of the respondent no.1 not being relieved within the aforesaid stipulated period, he shall be deemed to have been relieved by the virtue of this order."
12. From the above, it is evidently clear that plea of shortage of officers in a catena of cases, some of them are referred to above, has been considered to be not justified, for non-relieving of officer(s) for inter-cadre transfer requested on the ground of marriage. Further the coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in OA No.2061/2021 (Renu Sogan) (supra) has also observed that the shortage of officers is not abnormally high in the State of West Bengal. From the documents annexed with the OA, it is evidently clear that a number of officers from other states have been transferred to the State of West Bengal on grounds of marriage and vice versa. As such having regard to the catena of cases, especially to the aforesaid Order/Judgment of the Hon'ble Dehi High Court, the plea 21 OA No.3290/2022 of shortage of officers is no more tenable. We are also of the considered view that the relevant Rules/Policy and/or the law in no manner entitled the respondents to dictate to the All India Service Officers that whether husband or the wife should seek the cadre transfer. The present claim of the applicant is neither regarding seeking transfer or posting of his choice nor is the same a case of request of the cadre allocation. Accordingly, the judgments referred and relied on behalf of the respondents are of no help to them in the facts and circumstances of the case in hand.
13. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the applicant deserves to have a No Objection Certificate from Respondent No.2 for inter-cadre transfer to Rajasthan cadre. It is also pertinent to mention that in a number of earlier cases, this Tribunal had referred the matter back to the respondent no.2, i.e., Govt. of West Bengal, for re- considering grant of NOC. However, it is evident that the respondent No.2 has not taken effective action on those directions and in the present case, they have already indicated their view that NOC can't be issued, any such 22 OA No.3290/2022 further direction in the present case will not serve any purpose.
14. In the result, for the foregoing reasons, the present OA is partly allowed and the respondent no.2 is directed to grant No Objection Certificate to the applicant within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order, failing which 'No Objection Certificate (NOC) shall be deemed to have been issued by the respondent No.2, and thereafter the respondent no.1 is directed to take immediate action for cadre transfer of the applicant from West Bengal Cadre to Rajashtan Cadre by passing a necessary order in this regard within four weeks thereafter.
15. The OA stands partly allowed in the aforesaid terms. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
(Sanjeeva Kumar) (R.N. Singh)
Member (A) Member (J)
/ravi/