Allahabad High Court
Sanjay Kumar Bhattacharya vs Union Of India & Others on 1 July, 2010
Bench: Sunil Ambwani, Kashi Nath Pandey
Court No. - 29 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 37632 of 2010 Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar Bhattacharya Respondent :- Union Of India & Others Petitioner Counsel :- Satish Mandhyan Respondent Counsel :- A.S.G.I. Hon'ble Sunil Ambwani,J.
Hon'ble Kashi Nath Pandey,J.
Heard Shri Satish Mandhyan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.K. Mishra appears for the respondents.
The petitioner is serving as Assistant Superintendent in National Sample Survey Organization (Field Operation Division), Bareilly. By the order dated 29.11.2005 he was transferred from Regional office Bareilly, to Sub Regional Office Sriganganagar (Rajasthan).
In OA No. 1563 of 2005 the Central Administrative Tribunal issued directions that the applicant shall not be compelled to take over charge at Sriganganagar. Since thereafter he has continued at Bareilly under the interim orders of the Tribunal.
When the matter came up for hearing the petitioner requested the Tribunal for permission to make a representation to the Department.
The OA No. 1563 of 2005 was disposed of accordingly to decide his representation in four weeks. The interim relief was to continue till disposal of representation. His representation was rejected on 5.2.2010 on which he filed a fresh Original Application No. 304 of 2010 and a stay application. The Tribunal has disposed of the applications on 19.3.2010 with directions to keep the transfer order dated 29.11.2005, in abeyance upto 30.6.2010 giving rise to this writ petition.
It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that during the pendency of the application his family circumstances have changed. His wife is suffering from acute Rheumatoid Arthritis and is undergoing treatment at SGPGI Lucknow and that his handicapped daughter, who was earlier studying in Class XI, is also under treatment at Bareilly.
The petitioner had challenged the transfer order in the year 2005. He has continued to stay at Bareilly in pursuance to the interim orders for last five years. The Tribunal considered his application and directed the Department to decide his representation afresh. His representation was considered and rejected.
The circumstances, on which the transfer order was challenged, have since changed. His daughter has completed Class XII in the year 2006 and has now completed graduation. The order dated 5.2.2010, by which petitioner's representation was rejected, has considered petitioner's family difficulties. The Competent Authority is of the opinion that the medical facilities are also available at Sriganganagar.
A transfer order may be challenged on personal hardships, if the Competent Authority, has not considered the circumstances pleaded by the employee, or that the consideration is wholly arbitrary or unreasonable.
In this case the petitioner enjoyed the stay order for about five years, after which his prayers had become virtually infructuous. The grounds of challenge were no longer available to him. The fresh grounds on changed circumstances were also considered sympathetically and were not found to be sufficient to set aside the transfer order. There were no allegations of malafide, or any breach of statutory rules or transfer policy pleaded by the petitioner.
We do not find that the Tribunal has committed any error in rejecting the stay application and the OA.
The writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 1.7.2010 RKP