Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Mr Rajveer Sharma vs Employees State Insurance Corporation ... on 8 October, 2024
1
Item No. 1 (Suppl.) (C-3)
O.A. No. 3858/2024
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No. 3858/2024
This the 08th day of October, 2024
Hon'ble Mrs. Pratima K. Gupta, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S. Khati, Member (A)
Mr Rajveer Sharma
S/0 Late Sh. Shamsunder Lal Sharma, Aged- 58 years
R/0 Shipra Riviera Tower,
Indirapuram, U.P-201014
... Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. VK Singh, Ms. Yakshi Rawal and Mr.
Sourav Kumar)
Versus
1. EMPLOYEE STATE INSURANCE
CORPORATION (ESIC)
Through its Director General,
Panchdeep Bhawan,
Comrade Indrajeet Gupta Marg,
New Delhi -- 110002
2. REGIONAL DIRECTOR,
Panchdeep Bhawan, HUDA Staff Colony,
Sector 16, Faridabad, Haryana-121002
... Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Amit Chawla)
2
Item No. 1 (Suppl.) (C-3)
O.A. No. 3858/2024
O R D E R (ORAL)
Hon'ble Mrs. Pratima K. Gupta, Member (J):-
1. The applicant while working as Social Security Officer (SSO) with the respondents has been transferred from Faridabad to Binny Peth vide order dated 03.03.2024 (Serial Number
454) and a relieving order dated 20.09.2024 has been issued thereto. However, learned counsel for the parties confirm that the transfer order and the relieving order have not been given effect to because of the model code of conduct implemented in the state of Haryana because of the ongoing assembly elections results, which is in operation till today. Hence, the transfer has been put to hold till today.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that aggrieved by the transfer the applicant has preferred a representation at the ERP Portal which is annexed at page 78 of the O.A. (undated) and the same is still pending consideration before the respondents. Accordingly, the applicant has preferred the present O.A. seeking the following relief(s):-
" (i) Issue an appropriate order/directions for quashing/setting aside the Transfer Order dated 03.03.2024 bearing Office Order No. 35 of 2024 3 Item No. 1 (Suppl.) (C-3) O.A. No. 3858/2024 passed by the competent authority on the Recommendations of Transfer Committee only in respects of the applicants as the same are illegal, arbitrary and against the transfer policy and consequently pas an order allowing the applicant to serve at the present station as per transfer policy.
(ii) Issue an appropriate direction or order for quashing relieving order dated 20.9.2024 having an Office Order No. 146 of 2024 issued by the Deputy Director only in respect of the applicants.
(iii) Allow the O.A. with all consequential reliefs.
(iv) Pass any further order as this Hon'ble Tribunal seems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case."
3. Issue notice in the O.A. Mr. Amit Chawla, learned counsel, who appears on advance service, accepts notice. He seeks a reasonable period of time to file reply.
4. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant prays for grant of interim relief as set forth in para 9 of the O.A. which reads as under:-
"Pending final disposal of the main OA the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass Ex-Parte Ad-interim Order order staying the operation of the Impugned order dated 03.03.2024 (Annex.A/1) and Relieving Order dated 20.09.2024 (Annex.A/2) only in respect of applicants till the disposal of main OA. Any other relief which the Hon'ble Tribtmal deem fit and proper may also be in facts and circumstances of the case."4
Item No. 1 (Suppl.) (C-3) O.A. No. 3858/2024
5. Learned counsel for the applicant in support of the applicant's prayer for interim relief draws strength from the Transfer Policy annexed at page 135 of the O.A., specifically, to para 7.6 and 7.8 which read as under:-
"7.6 Officers who are due for retirement on superannuation within next two years may not be considered for transfer in general. However, if exigency of service requires such a transfer, orders thereof will be issued after recording the reasons in writing.
7.8 Posting consideration of Husband and Wife shall be governed as per extant guidelines of DoPT in the matter."
6. Learned counsel for the applicant, relying upon the aforequoted para 7.6, submits that the applicant has a residual service of less than 2 years and in terms of the provision of the Transfer Policy the applicant could not be transferred. Additionally, the wife of the applicant is working with the Delhi Government. He submits that in terms of the aforementioned para 7.8 and the guidelines of the DoP&T on the subject, the respondents were obliged to consider the case of the applicant in his favor. 5 Item No. 1 (Suppl.) (C-3) O.A. No. 3858/2024
7. Mr. Amit Chawla, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the prayer for interim relief. He submits that the applicant has already submitted his representation on the ERP portal of the respondents and as many as 300 incumbents had submitted their representations and all of them have been disposed of by the respondents. He adds that the outcome of all the representations received by them have already been placed on the website. Drawing attention to para 7.6 of the transfer policy, he submits that it is correct that the applicant has less than 2 years of residual service. However, if exigencies so require then the applicant could be asked to serve at a different place. He adds that vide the impugned transfer order as many as 746 incumbents have been transferred for administrative reasons and the respondents are well within their rights to transfer them after determining the suitability and administrative exigency. With respect to the second contention that the applicant's wife is working with the Delhi Government, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the transfer policy provides guidelines and they are not mandatory in nature. He explains that as far as 6 Item No. 1 (Suppl.) (C-3) O.A. No. 3858/2024 possible the guidelines of the transfer policy are to be followed and maintained, however, administrative exigencies take precedence.
8. Be that as it may.
9. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant may be permitted to make a fresh detailed self contained representation before the respondents and prays that the respondents may be directed to dispose of the same by way of a reasoned and speaking order within a limited time frame.
10. In view of the limited prayer made hereinabove, the O.A. is disposed of with a direction to the applicant to prefer a detailed self contained representation airing his grievance before the respondents within a week from today and the respondents are directed to dispose of the representation so received within a period of two weeks thereafter by way of a reasoned and speaking order. However, till the final decision on the representation of the applicant, the impugned orders dated 03.03.2024 and 20.09.2024 shall not be operated upon.
7Item No. 1 (Suppl.) (C-3) O.A. No. 3858/2024
11. Before parting, it is made clear that we have neither gone into the merits nor expressed any opinion thereto.
(Dr. Anand S. Khati) (Pratima K. Gupta)
Member (A) Member (J)
/dd/