Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
P.J. Rao Son Of Shri Krishna Rao vs Union Of India Through The Secretary To ... on 13 July, 2016
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 060/00255/2016
Date of filing: 21.03.2016
Order reserved on: 11.07.2016
Chandigarh, this the 13th day of July, 2016
CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE L.N. MITTAL, MEMBER (J)
P.J. Rao son of Shri Krishna Rao, aged 56 years, presently working as Area Manager, Canteen Stores Department, Bhatinda, Punjab, (Group-A).
.APPLICANT
BY ADVOCATE: SHRI ROHIT SHARMA
VERSUS
1. Union of India through the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi.
2. Chairman, Board of Administration and General Manager, Canteen Stores Department, Adelphi, 119, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020.
.RESPONDENTS
BY ADVOCATE: SHRI ARVIND MOUDGIL
ORDER
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE L.N. MITTAL, MEMBER(J):-
By filing this Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, applicant P.J. Rao has sought the following relief:
(i) Quash the order dated 3.3.2016 (Annexure A-1) vide which the applicant has been transferred from CSD Depot, Bhatinda to CSD HO, Mumbai and he is to report there by 11.4.2016, which is in colourable exercise of powers and contrary to instructions inasmuch as the claim of the applicant has not been considered for compensatory posting despite the fact that the applicant is entitled for the same and the impugned order is arbitrary, illegally, discriminately against the Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India.
(ii) Quash order dated 17.3.16 (Annexure A-2) vide which the claim of the applicant has been kept pending and it has been passed without assigning any reasons and the same is cryptic and non speaking and which is in violation of revised Posting Policy of Group A Officer in the Canteen Store Department dated 25.11.2009 (Annexure A-3).
(iii) Issue direction to the respondents to keep the applicant at present place of posting till the grant him compensatory posting of choice station against a field/tenure station in terms of revised Posting Policy of Group A Officer in the Canteen Store Department dated 25.11.2009 (Annexure A-9).
2. Facts in the case are undisputed. The applicant was appointed as Manager Grade-I on 4.11.1998 through Union Public Service Commission against a regular post in Canteen Stores Department (respondents). He was promoted as Assistant General Manager w.e.f. 20.9.2012. The applicant has served at various stations such as Mumbai (Head Office), Leh, Pathankot, Mumbai, Narangi (Assam), Deemapur (Nagaland), Bangalore (Karnataka) and is presently posted at Bhatinda (Punjab). The applicant served at two hard stations in North Eastern Region i.e. Dimapur and Narangi continuously from April 2008 to September 2010. In view thereof, the applicant had sought compensatory posting at his choice Depot out of Dehradun, Ambala and Khadki as per policy guidelines dated 25.11.2009 (Annexure A-3). However, the same was not granted. The applicant was transferred from Dimapur to CSD Headquarter, Mumbai vide order dated 7.6.2010. The applicant made representation dated 9.6.2010 seeking posting at his choice station, but the same was rejected by non- speaking order dated 10.6.2010. The applicant challenged the same by filing O.A. No. 150 of 2010 in Guwahati Bench of the Tribunal. The said O.A. was disposed of vide order dated 17.6.2010 (Annexure A-7) requiring the respondents to decide applicants representation dated 9.6.2010 by passing speaking and reasoned order. Accordingly, speaking order dated 25.6.2010 (Annexure A-8) was passed mentioning that the choice Depots of the applicant were Extra Large Depots and the applicant could not be considered for same having completed 11 years service only and he would be eligible for posting there after one year on completion of 12 years service as per policy. It was also mentioned in the order (Annexure A-8) that on completion of his tenure at HO, Mumbai, on his turn for posting, his choice will be considered on merit subject to availability of vacancies in various Depots. Within short period of six months, the applicant was transferred from Mumbai to Bangalore although it was not his choice station. However, in view of emergent situation arising there due to post fire effect and huge discrepancies in all the groups which were distracting the day to day functions of the depot at that point of time, the applicant accepted the said transfer without making any representation for change. The work of the applicant at Bangalore was appreciated by the higher authorities. The applicant submitted representation dated 14.3.2014 (Annexure A-9) requesting for posting at his choice station Chennai, Jalandhar or Secunderabad as per transfer policy. The applicant was, however, transferred to Bhatinda (which was not his choice station) vide order dated 22.5.2014 (Annexure A-5). Apprehending that he would be transferred out in 2016, the applicant submitted representation dated 4.2.2016 (Annexure A-10) again seeking posting at any of the aforesaid choice stations. However, vide impugned transfer order dated 3.3.2016 (Annexure A-1), the applicant has been transferred from Bhatinda to Mumbai. Vide communication dated 17.3.2016 (Annexure A-2) in reference to his representation dated 4.2.2016 (Annexure A-10), the respondents have mentioned that applicants request has been noted and will be considered at appropriate time. Feeling aggrieved, the applicant has filed this O.A. alleging interalia that the impugned transfer order is in violation of the policy guidelines (Annexure A-3) and the applicant is entitled posting at choice station because he had already remained posted at hard stations.
3. Vide interim order dated 22.3.2016, this Tribunal stayed the operation of the impugned transfer order (Annexure A-1) qua the applicant and the said interim stay order is operating till date.
4. Respondents in their written statement while not controverting the factual position, interalia pleaded that transfer is an incidence of service and it has been held by various Courts that Courts should not interfere with purely administrative matters except when absolutely necessary. Alongwith applicant, other officers were also transferred vide impugned transfer order (Annexure A-1) and due to interim stay order passed by this Tribunal, chain of transfer has been disrupted and one Gokularajan who had to relieve the applicant at Bhatinda had already been relieved from Mumbai to report at Bhatinda and he had to be called back on account of interim order of the Tribunal. The applicant had also filed O.A. before the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal when he was transferred from Bangalore to Head Office, Mumbai. Vide order dated 22.8.2013, the said O.A. was allowed by Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal permitting the applicant to stay at Bangalore till May, 2014 as prayed by him on account of academic year of his son and thereafter the applicant was transferred to Bhatinda on 2.6.2014. He did not raise any objection to the said transfer although in fairness, he should have claimed posting at Mumbai from Bangalore after May, 2014.
5. The applicant filed replication wherein he controverted the stand of the respondents and reiterated his own version.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Counsel for the parties reiterated their respective versions.
7. I have carefully considered the matter. It is undisputed that the applicant served at two hard stations i.e. Narangi in Assam and Deemapur in Nagaland (North Eastern States) continuously from April 2008 to September 2010. Consequently, in view of policy guidelines (Annexure A-3), he was entitled to compensatory posting at his choice station. However, he was transferred from Dimapur to Mumbai (not his choice station) vide order dated 7.6.2010. He gave representation dated 9.6.2010 which was decided vide speaking order dated 25.6.2010 (Annexure A-8) stipulating interalia that after serving for one more year, he would be completing 12 years of service making him eligible for his choice station of Extra Large Depots subsequently. It was also stipulated that on his turn for posting, his choice will be considered on merit subject to availability of vacancies in various depots. However, he was prematurely transferred from Mumbai to Bangalore due to certain exigencies. The applicant accepted the same without any protest or murmur. Thereafter he made representation dated 14.3.2014 requesting for his posting at choice station i.e. Chennai, Jalandhar or Secunderabad as per policy guidelines (Annexure A-3). The applicant was, however, transferred to Bhatinda (which was not his choice station) vide order dated 22.5.2014 (Annexure A-5). He still accepted the same without protest. The respondents are projecting the same as an adverse circumstance against him, instead of appreciating the grace shown by the applicant in accepting the said transfer without making any representation. When the applicant was to be transferred out from Bhatinda in the year 2016, the applicant made representation dated 4.2.2016 (Annexure A-10) seeking his posting at any of the aforesaid choice stations. However, instead of accommodating him at his choice station to which he was entitled to as per policy guidelines (Annexure A-3), he has been transferred to Head Office, Mumbai vide impugned order dated 3.3.2016 (Annexure A-1). Thus since June 2010 for almost 6 years, the applicant has not been granted his due by transferring him to his choice station on compensatory posting having served at hard stations and even now he has been transferred to Mumbai instead of transferring him to his choice station. Thus the impugned transfer order of the applicant is completely illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable.
8. It is correct, as pleaded by the respondents, that transfer is an incidence of service and Courts should not interfere with purely administrative matters of transfer etc. except when absolutely necessary. The instant case, however, falls in the exception. The respondents even having stipulated in the order dated 25.6.2010 (Annexure A-8) to accommodate the applicant at his choice station after one year and thus having recognized his right, have not done so despite lapse of almost 6 years. When the applicant was transferred from Bangalore to Mumbai vide order dated 22.8.2013, he was allowed to stay at Bangalore till May, 2014 by order of Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal. However, it does not mean that he lost his right to get compensatory posting at his choice station in lieu of his service at hard stations. The problem faced by the respondents consequent to interim stay order dated 22.3.2016 passed by this Tribunal is of their own creation because they have been denying the due claim of the applicant.
9. For the reasons aforesaid, I find that the impugned transfer order dated 3.3.2016 (Annexure A-1) qua transfer of the applicant from CSD, Bhatinda to CSD, HO, Mumbai is illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable. Cryptic Order dated 17.3.2016 (Annexure A-2), whereby representation dated 4.2.2016 (Annexure A-10) of the applicant has been kept pending without assigning any reason, is also unsustainable. Both these orders are accordingly quashed. The applicant shall continue to be posted at CSD Depot, Bhatinda till he is granted compensatory posting at his choice station as per policy guidelines dated 25.11.2009 (Annexure A-3). The O.A. is allowed accordingly with no order as to costs.
(JUSTICE L.N. MITTAL) MEMBER (J) Dated: 13.07.2016 `SK 8 (O.A. No. 060/00255/2016)