Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Shailendra Kumar Singh vs Directorate General Of Quality ... on 30 July, 2025
(Open Court)
Central Administrative Tribunal
Allahabad Bench, Allahabad
****
Original Application No.364 of 2023
This the 30th Day of July, 2025.
Hon'ble Mr. Rajnish Kumar Rai, Member (J)
1. Shailendra Kumar Singh, AE (QA), SQAE (GS) DGQA
Complex Ashok Path Kanpur, aged about 53 years, Son of
Ram Krishna Ahirwar, Resident of near nav Chetan park,
M.E. 48 Mini M I G Hemant Vihar Barra 2, Barra S. O.
Kanpur Nagar, U.P. 208027.
2. Subhash Chandra, AE (QA), CQA (GS) DGQA Complex
Ashok Path Kanpur, aged about 43 years, Son of Badree
Prasad, Resident of House No. 14 Patti Bhojeymau Gaura
R. S. Patti Pratapgarh Uttar Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh-
230301.
....Applicants.
By Advocate: Shri Anil Kumar Singh/Shri Rohit Singh.
Versus
1. Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Defence
Production 136 South Block, New Delhi.
2. The Director General of Quality Assurance Government of
India Ministry of Defence Production- DGQA (Stores)
Nirman Bhawan P.O. New Delhi.
3. The ADDL DGQA (S) Department of Defence Production
DGQA G- Block New Delhi.
SHAKUNTALA VERMA
2
4. Senior Quality Assurance Officer, Senior Quality Assurance
Establishment DGQA Complex, Ashok Path, Kanpur Cantt-
208004.
5. The Controller, Controllerate of Quality Assurance,
CQA(GS), DGQA Stores Complex, Ashok path, Cantt,
Kanpur 2080044.
...Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan.
ORDER
Shri Anil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicants and Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan, learned counsel for the respondents are present and heard.
2. The present Original Application has been instituted by the applicants assailing the impugned Transfer Order dated 13.04.2023, issued by Respondent No. 2, whereby they have been directed to relocate from their current postings at SQAE (GS), Kanpur to alternate stations. The applicants have further challenged the consequential Movement Order dated 29.04.2023, alleging both to be violative of the Ministry of Defence's Rotational Transfer Policy and its binding directives. Upon initial consideration, this Tribunal, vide interim order dated 09.05.2023, was pleased to grant stay against the said transfer and movement orders, directing that no coercive steps SHAKUNTALA VERMA 3 be taken till 30.05.2023, when a connected matter was scheduled for hearing. The said interim relief continues to remain in operation as on date.
3. The matter is listed today under the heading 'Part Heard Matters'. Learned counsel for the applicants and Learned Counsel for the respondents have been heard at length. The parties reiterated their respective positions based on the pleadings, annexed documents, and previous interim orders passed in this case.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that, owing to developments subsequent to the issuance of the impugned orders, several similarly placed employees have either joined at their transferred stations, attained superannuation, or continue to serve at their existing posts. He placed reliance upon the decision of this Tribunal dated 22.04.2025 in O.A. No. 1010 of 2017, wherein a similarly situated applicant, nearing retirement, was extended protection under the Ministry of Defence's Transfer Policy dated 10.02.2017, in light of compassionate and tenure-based considerations. The Tribunal's Order dated SHAKUNTALA VERMA 4 22.04.2025 is reproduced below for reference and contextual application to the present matter:-
"Open Court CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD BENCH ALLAHABAD ********* Original Application No. 1010 of 2017 Allahabad this the 22nd day of April, 2025 Hon'ble Mr. Rajnish Kumar Rai, Member-J
1. Anjali Dayal (SA), aged about 45 years, W/o Ravindra Kumar, Resident of SH-123 6th Floor Chandra Ganga Enclave Pokharpur, Kanpur Jajmau, 208010 CQA (Materials).
2. Mithlesh Kumar JTO (S), aged about 53 years, S/o Late Babu Lal, Resident of House No. 4/233 Purana Kanpur 208002 CQA (Textile & Clothing).
3. Deleted vide Order dated 22.12.2022.
4. Dinesh Kumar Srivastava JTO (S), aged about 56 years, S/o Shri Umesh Chandra Lal, Resident of G-2, Shri Girdhari Apptt 128-543/13, 'K' Block Kidwai Nagar, Kanpur - 208011 CQA (Textile & Clothing).
5. Uma Shanker JTO (S), aged about 50 years, S/o Late Bhikha Ram, Resident of H. No. 90, Amrit Puram, Koyla Nagar, Kanpur Textile & Clothing.
Applicant By Advocates: Mr. Anil Kumar Singh Mr. M.K. Upadhyay Vs.
1. Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Defence Production 136, South Block, New Delhi.
2. The Director General of Quality Assurance Government of India Ministry of Defence Production- DGQA, 308-A, D-I Wing, Sena Bhawan New Delhi 110011.
SHAKUNTALA VERMA 5
3. The ADDL. DGQA (S) Department of Defence Production-DGQA Q-Block, New Delhi.
4. Controller, Controllerate of Quality Assurance (Materials/Textiles & Clothing) DGQA Stores Complex Ashok Path Kanpur - 208004.
Respondents By Advocate: Mr. Raghvendra Pratap Singh ORDER Shri Anil Kumar Singh, counsel for the applicants and Shri Raghvendra Pratap Singh, counsel for the respondents are present and heard.
2. This O.A. has been filed by the applicants against the impugned transfer order dated 19.07.2017 passed by the respondent No. 3. The applicants have also challenged the relieving order dated 18.08.2017. This Tribunal vide Order dated 29.08.2017 restrained the respondents to give effect the aforesaid transfer order and relieving order. Till today, the interim order has been continuing.
3. This case is listed today under the heading 'final hearing'. Counsels for the parties have been heard.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that by the afflux of time, the status of the applicants has been changed. He further submitted that the applicant No. 1-Anjali Dayal has joined at the place of transfer and she does not want to pursue further this O.A. Hence, with respect to applicant No. 1, the O.A. has become infructuous. Regarding applicant No. 2, the applicants' counsel has submitted that he has retired, as such, against the applicant No. 2, the O.A. has become infructuous. The name of applicant No. 3 was already deleted in compliance of the Order of this Tribunal dated 22.10.2022. As regard applicant No. 4, the applicants' counsel has submitted that he has retired, as such, against the applicant No. 4, the O.A. has become infructuous.
5. So far as applicant No. 5 is concerned, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that he has only two years left for superannuation hence, as per Transfer Policy framed by Department of Defence Production, Government of India dated 10.02.2017, he should be exempted from future rotational transfer.
SHAKUNTALA VERMA 6
6. The respondents have filed the counter reply wherein they submitted that the treasurer of All India DGQA Engineering Association has challenged the transfer order before the Principal Bench of this Tribunal through O.A. No. 1310 of 2017 (Sri Gautam Singh V. The Secretary, Ministry of Defence) and while dismissing the aforesaid Ο.Α. vide order dated 25.04.2017, the Principal Bench, CAT, New Delhi has imposed a cost of Rs.25,000/-on the applicant, observed in para-ll of the judgment that "needless to say that in case the Tribunal starts interfering in such routine administrative functions and stay or cancel such transfers, it would create serious problem for the administration. The Principal Bench relied upon the judgment of S.C. Saxena Vs. Union of India and another, 2006 SCC (L&S) 1890 dismissed the aforesaid O.Α. In another O.A. i.e. O.A. No.1339 of 2017 (Pawan Jindal, General Secretary All India DGQA, Engineering Association Vs. Union of India and others), Principal Bench CAT, New Delhi vide judgment and order dated 25.04.2017 dismissed the Ο.Α. and imposed a cost of Rs.10,000/-, with further observation "Needless to say, this O.A. is not maintainable as the applicant has failed to satisfy this Tribunal why transfer should be quashed and secondly, he has no locus-standi as an individual to question the transfer of other officials. In any case, this is not an individual transfer and it is a rotational transfer, which is undertaken every year and large number of people have been transferred. This is an attempt by the applicant to derail the smooth functioning of the organization and waste precious judicial time and men power"
7. Initially, the interim order was granted in favour of present applicants on 29.08.2017 keeping in view that in the identical O.A. No. 305/2017 connected with O.A No. 486/2017 before the Mumbai Bench as well as in the OA. 2791/2017 filed before the Principal Bench at New Delhi, the interim order was granted in favour of the applicants therein. Accordingly, the interest of the applicants herein was also protected. Thereafter, on 11.01.2019, the Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal dismissed the aforesaid OAs after taking into consideration the Order dated 17.12.2008 of the Principal Bench in O.A. 2791/2017. The relevant part of the Order dated 11.01.2019 is quoted herein below: -
"2. When the case was first heard on 15.05.2017, the applicants brought to notice the orders of the Bangalore Bench granting interim relief to the applicants therein, and the applicants in the present cases were granted interim relief, which continues today. During the hearing on 08.08.2018, the SHAKUNTALA VERMA 7 learned counsel for applicants informed that a transfer application had been filed before the Principal Bench for transfer of this OA, but was not granted. In response, the Principal Bench passed orders on 31.08.2018 in PT Nos. 142/2018, 146/2018 and 174/2018 staying the proceedings before this Tribunal. Therefore, it is apparent that the applicants all along are arguing for keeping these matters pending until orders of the Principal Bench on the principal issue of their challenge to the Rotational Transfer Policy. Those orders are now available in orders of the Principal Bench in OA No.2791/2017 decided on 17.12.2018 by which it has been decided as below:-
"New RTP relating to not holding of DPCs, not identifying sensitive and non sensitive posts, presumptive cost to exchequer and not following the recommendations of the concerned committee are not tenable. Formulation of policy is in the domain of the competent authority and unless there is some clear irregularity, which the above points do not indicate, any interference by this Tribunal is totally unwarranted. Thus, the matter regarding the validity of the New RTP being completely covered by the judgment of the Bangalore bench of this Tribunal referred above and, furthermore, the applicants have failed to give any convincing reason why this policy should be interfered with, we come to the conclusion that there is no ground to interfere with the New RTP dated 24.11.2016 challenged in the present OA."
3. Taking into consideration the stand of the parties all along during the pendency of the OA that the present OAs are identical to the OA No. 2791/2017 in Mrs. Alka Chauhan & Ors. V/s. Union of India & Ors. decided on 17.12.2018, pending before the Principal Bench of this Tribunal, and the fact that the said matter Alka Chauhan (Supra) has since been decided by the Principal Bench vide Judgment and Order dated 17.12.2018, we are of the view that the present OAs may also be disposed in the same terms as order dated 17.12.2018 in OA No.2791/2017. 20 OA No. 305 of 2017 with OA No.486/2017
4. In view of the above, both the above OAs are dismissed without any order as to costs."
7. Looking into peculiar facts of the case, O.A. is not survived with respect to applicants No. 1 to 4 and applicant No. 5 is due to be superannuated within two years. Accordingly, in view of the submission of counsel for the SHAKUNTALA VERMA 8 parties, this Court is of the opinion that no purpose would be served in keeping this O.A. pending. Accordingly, the O.A. stands disposed of qua applicant No. 5 with direction to him to move a fresh representation in the light of aforesaid transfer policy of Department of Defence Production dated 10.02.2017 within a period of fifteen days from today and further the respondents are directed to consider and decide the such representation if, moved by the applicant, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of fresh representation along with a certified copy of this Order. Till the disposal of representation, the respondents are directed not to take any coercive action against the applicant No. 5. The action taken on the representation of applicant, shall be communicated to the applicant forthwith. No cost."
5. The submission of the learned counsel for the applicants is that the present Original Application may be disposed of at this stage with liberty to the applicants that, if any cause still survives against them.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents, though present, has not raised any substantive objection to the limited prayer made on behalf of the applicants for disposal of the representation in accordance with law.
7. Accordingly, in view of the submission of counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that no purpose would be served in keeping this O.A. pending. Accordingly, the O.A. stands disposed of at this stage with liberty to the applicants that, if any cause still survives against them. They move a SHAKUNTALA VERMA 9 representation for redressal of their grievances before the competent authority within a period of one month from the date of this Order. In such event, the respondents are directed to consider and decide such representation, if moved by the applicants, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the fresh representation along with a certified copy of this Order. Till disposal of such representation, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant(s) in respect of whom the cause still survives. The action taken on the representation shall be communicated to the concerned applicant(s) forthwith. No costs.
8. All pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(Rajnish Kumar Rai) Member (J) /Shakuntala/ SHAKUNTALA VERMA