Central Administrative Tribunal - Patna
P.R. Mehton vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 28 December, 1998
JUDGMENT Jasbir S. Dhaliwal, Member (J)
1. Through this judgment, it is proposed to dispose of the above mentioned two OAs, which have raised identical questions of law and are based on similar facts.
2. Applicant Shri P.R. Mehton was appointed to LSG on 1.4.82 being norm based and further promoted to HSG-II in 1986, again on norms based. He was promoted to HSG-I on 1.8.91 and was posted as Head Record Officer (HRO) at Jalandhar.
3. Similarly, Shri F.C. Sharma, earning promotions like Shri Mehton, was posted as HRO Ludhiana w.e.f. 8.10.91 in HSG-I. Both of them are aggrieved by order at Annexure A-I dated 3.12.98, vide which Shri P.R.Mehton has been transferred to the post of Head Sorting Assistant (HSG-I), RMS Ludhiana and Shri Chain Ram, HSG-1 has been ordered to work as HRO (HSG-1), RMS Ludhiana.
4. In the case of Shri F.C. Sharma, respondent No.2, CPMG, Punjab Circle, has directed the Postmaster General, Punjab Circle, to transfer him from the post of HRO to the post of HSA in I-Division, Jalandhar. Both of them plead that HRO is a post which carries duties with it of administrative nature and in this position, they are made Incharge of a particular Division. They are administrative heads, including ordering transfers of Sorters, being drawing and disbursing officer, disciplinary authority for Group 'C' and 'D' employees and also exercise power of grant of casual leave to HSAs. By the present order of transfer, they have been reduced in rank and status. HSA does not have the disciplinary, executive and drawing and disbursing powers. It amounts to making the person holding the post of HRO to work under his own juniors who may have been under his administrative control. They had come to this position from a standard norm-based supervisory post and the present order has the effect of putting them to a lower post, amounting to reversion. They have produced the powers vested in HRO from schedule VIII as given in P&T Manual, volume-III, in support of their above mentioned submissions. Even after the introduction of OTBP and BRD schemes, which entitle an official to be promoted to the next higher scale of pay on completion of 16 years and 26 years of service respectively, the posts of HRO have been filled up on the basis of seniority with preference and priority to officials who have been promoted against norm-based standard post (A-4). Shri Chain Ram, Bachan Lal and Om Parkash, working in RMS Ludhiana, Jalandhar and Amritsar and junior to both the applicants. They had earlier tried to get the post of HRO, but after having failed, they have taken the support of the Workers' Union and have got written a letter from the Secretary of the Union. They allege that respondents have been pressurised and influenced by the office holders of the Union, which has resulted in passing of the impugned orders. Earlier, the attempt of the juniors like Chain Ram had been thwarted by the superior authority, but this time, they have been successful in getting the orders impugned, which would result in humiliation and embarrassment to the applicants and will work to their disadvantage. Both claim that their work and conduct has been very good. Under the P&T Manual, Volume-II, tenure of one's posting as HRO is 4 years. Both the applicants have come to the present post only recently, about a year back and now are being arbitrarily transferred without completion of their tenure. The order deprives them of their status in the post, and also involves reduction in rank and thus has to be taken to be punitive. Both have prayed for quashing the orders at Annexure A-1 and the orders of transfer from the post of HRO to the post of HSA.
5. Respondents have contested both the cases through their detailed replies. It is pleaded that tenure of an officer under the P&T Manual, be it LSG or HSG is 4 years and having been promoted to the post of HSG-1, both the applicants had completed 4 years in 1995. Because of a mistake on the part of the respondents, they have continued in that post upto 1997 when they were transferred to different stations, but on the similar post of HRO in HSG-1. Vide D.C. Posts, New Delhi letter dated 2.3.93 addressed to all Heads of Offices, while clarifying Rule 60 (Clauses 15 and 15-A), it has been stated that on completion of tenure in HRO or Divisional office, considering the newly upgraded 58 posts of HSG-1, an official should be made to work in the Mail office before being posted back in either of the two offices i.e. Divisional Office or HRO (R-2). When the tenure of the applicants was reviewed at the Headquarter level, it was discovered that both the applicants had completed more than 4 years and after 4 years, it was statutory obligation of the department under Rule 60 aforesaid for being transferred. Under these instructions, both the applicants should have been posted in the Mail Office (HSA) as HSG1. It is pleaded that the policy decision as circulated, is not under challenge in the present OA and transfer of the applicants is in consonance with the policy decision mentioned above. The post in HSG-1 carries the pay scale of Rs. 2000-3500 which is for both HRO and HSA. They cannot claim that post of HSA under HSG-1 is lower than that of HRO HSG-1. It is true that the post of HRO carries with it certain duties and has been clothed with some administrative powers in discharge of functions of that post, but that itself cannot be made a ground to claim that post of HSA is lower than that of HRO. Both these posts are in a common seniority list of HSG-1 and no separate seniority lists are maintained for HROs and HSAs. One may be a few points higher in the common seniority list, but that does not make holding of post by him superior in the same cadre in the same scale.
6. Applicants have filed rejoinders. Both the learned counsel have been heard.
7. The learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on the judgment in the case of "Kashmir Chand Sharma v. Union of India" decided on 19.1.89 by Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal. After going through the same, it is seen that the applicants cannot derive any benefit. The applicant in that case was a Sub Postmaster in the scale of Rs. 1400-2300 and he had been transferred to the post of Signaller which had the pay scale of Rs. 975-1660. Besides this, the Bench had found that order of transfer in that case was not a transfer simpliciter but the attendant circumstances pointed out the same to be vitiated by malafides, arbitrariness and colourable exercise of power. In the present case, it is seen that the applicants are being replaced by persons who are HSG-1 and carry the same scale of pay as the applicants. No malafides against a particular person have been alleged, nor there is any thing on record to substantiate the same even by inference. At this point of time, the Bench can take benefit from the judgments in the case of G.S. Bhullar v. Allahabad Bank, Calcutta and Ors., 1983(3) SLR 747. In this case, persons holding the post of Manager Incharge of a Bank which carried with it some extra benefits, like ex gratia payment etc. could be transferred with the same scale and rank to the Head office, where they would be deprived of those benefits and would have to work under administrative control of others. Regarding exercise of administrative powers, as claimed by the applicants in a particular post, an example of IAS officer was given. It was observed that an IAS officer, functioning as Deputy Commissioner is Incharge of a District and as such enjoys with it certain privileges. After holding the post of DC, such incumbent could not insist upon that he cannot be transferred to a post in the same grade and scale, which would be minus those privileges.
8. In the case of K. Gopaul v. Union of India, AIR 1967 SC 1864, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had considered similar contentions. There one confirmed I.G. of Registration and Head of the Department was transferred to the post of Accommodation Controller, a post carrying the same scale of pay as the formal post, in the IAS cadre. The said person had challenged the illegality of the order that it amounted to reduction in rank as the latter post was not that of the Head of the Department and that his earlier post of IG was superior in rank to that of Deputy Secretary. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the mere fact that the post of Accommodation Controller to which he had been transferred was not designated as Head of the Department was of no consequence as rank in Govt. service did not depend upon the mere circumstances that the Govt. servant in the discharge of his duties is given certain powers. In Govt. service, there may be senior posts, the holders of which are not declared HOD, while persons holding junior posts may be declared as such. In that case, it was found that both the posts being in the same cadre, in the same scale of pay, have to be held to be of equal status. Enjoyment of certain extra powers or benefits will not make any difference. This judgment was relied upon by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of P.R. Chauhan v. State of UP and Ors., 1982 (3) SLR 313. There also the Director of Education was transferred to another post. Such Director SCERT had administrative control over certain others in the Education Department, including budgetary control, having a huge budget at his disposal.
It was held that these factors will not make the post of Director SCERT inferior to the post of Director of Education which was in similar scale of pay.
9. Taking guidance from these authorities, this Bench cannot give much value to the claim of the applicants that since they had been enjoying certain administrative powers while being the HROs, their transfer to the post of HSA, which is in the same common seniority list and carries the same scale of pay, amounts to either reversion or reduction in rank. For this, the Bench finds support from the policy decision taken by the respondents on the basis of Rule 60 in the P&T Manual, as provided in Sub-clauses 15 and 15-A. A policy decision was circulated through letter dated 2.3.93 which was further circulated through letter dated 29.20.98 for clarifying the queries which arose from disputes like the dispute raised by the applicants. The relevant para is being reproduced below :
"Subject: Tenure in R.M.S. I am directed to invite your kind attention to this office circular letter of even number dated 8.12.1992 reiterating that the Rule 60 (15 & 15A) of P&T Manual Vol. IV is applicable to all staff in RMS including Group-D and in the newly upgraded 58 posts to HSG-1 and it is further clarified that after completion of tenure in HRO or Divl. office, an official should be made to work in a Mail office before being posted back in either of the two offices i.e Divisional office or HRO and not simply rotated between Divisional office and HRO."
10. Reading of the above policy decision makes it very clear that after completion of tenure in HRO or Divisional office, an officer is required to be made to work in Mail office (in the sorting wing) before being posted back in either of these two offices. This goes to indicate that the Department considers posting from HRO office to HSA not only legal, but desirable. Faced with this policy decision, which is not challenged by either of the two applicants in these two OAs, the contention of the applicants against the order of transfer is found to be not tenable.
11. Their grievance that at the new stations they had not completed 4 years tenure and had merely completed one year, is found to be factually incorrect. Both of them were posted as HROs in HSG-1 in the year 1991. Under the aforesaid policy decision, they should have been transferred to HSA in 1995. They have in fact enjoyed the tenure for more than 6 years. Now they cannot be heard to say that they had not completed 4 years tenure.
12. In the case of Shri F.C. Sharma, the respondents have correctly pointed out that transfer order was only proposed by respondent No. 2 and actual transfer order is yet to be issued. He has rushed to the Tribunal before any actual order of transfer being passed.
13. This Bench is not impressed by the contention of the applicants that the transfer orders have been maneouvered at the behest of the Workers' Union. A vigilant workers' union is at liberty to point out a departure by the concerned authorities from the accepted policy decisions. Annexure R-3, a letter by the Circle Secretary of the Union merely pointed out that through the policy decisions dated 18.12.92 and 2.3.93 and under the rules and instructions, such as Rule 60 (15 and 15-A) of the P&T Manual, Vol. IV, postings interse HRO to HSA is required. Pointing out that persons have continued for more than 6 years against the provided tenure of 4 years cannot be taken to be undue influence or pressure brought on the competent authorities, particularly when it is seen that the departure being made by respondents was correctly pointed out by the Circle Secretary.
14. Applicants' claim that both of them are qualified Accountants, whereas the persons sought to be posted in their places do not have that qualification will not be relevant. Acquiring additional qualification is a good thing, but it is not the required qualification for holding the post of HRO. Having this qualification may benefit the applicants in performance of their duties because of the reason of having added knowledge about a particular subject, but that cannot be made a ground to interfere with their orders of transfer.
15. For the reasons mentioned above, this Bench finds no merit in both the OAs and these are dismissed as such, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.