Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sanjib Kumar Halder @ Sanjib Halder vs The Union Of India & Ors on 11 April, 2018
Author: Debasish Kar Gupta
Bench: Debasish Kar Gupta
1
11.04.2018.
Item no. 2.
Court No. 19
ap W.P.C.T. No. 24 of 2018
Sanjib Kumar Halder @ Sanjib Halder
Versus
The Union of India & Ors.
Mr. Sanjib Kumar Halder.
...For the petitioner in person.
Mr. Arun Kumar Mondal.
..Enforcement Officer of the
respondent authority.
This writ application is directed against an order dated April 6, 2018 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Bench in original application bearing O.A. No. 467 of 2018.
By virtue of the above order, the learned Tribunal fixed the above matter on June 15, 2018 for hearing. However, the learned Tribunal was not inclined to pass an interim order staying operation of the release order dated April 4, 2018 passed by the respondent authority.
The above release order was passed releasing the petitioner from his present place of posting in the Zonal Office of the respondent organization at 2 Barrackpore for joining in his transferred place of posting at the Regional Office at Shilong.
This matter has a chequered history.
According to the petitioner, he has been appointed to the post of Data Entry Operator (DEO Group-A) on April 5, 2000 and he was posted at Darjeeling. Subsequently, he was transferred to the Regional Office at Kolkata with effect from December 9, 2002. It is the case of the petitioner that he has subsequently been promoted to the post of Data Entry Operator (DEO Group-C). According to the petitioner, meanwhile the Government created a new entry cadre of Data Processing Assistant (DPA Group-C) in the Electronic Data Processing (EDP) Cell under the Employees Provident Fund Organization adopting a further policy to abolish to the post of Data Entry Operator re-designated the existing Data Entry Operators as Data Processing Assistant.
By an order issued under Memo No.HRM-
III/1(1)/2017/DPAs/Transfer dated February 27, 2018 the petitioner has been transferred to Regional Office of the respondent authority situated at Shilong. The petitioner filed an original application bearing 3 O.A. No. 342 of 2018 before the Central Administrative Tribunal and by an order dated March 9, 2018 the above original application was disposed of with the following directions upon the respondent no.4:
"5. .......... we hereby direct the respondent no.4 to dispose of the representation of the applicant dated
02.3.2018 (Annexure A-8 to the O.A.) received at his end within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the decision thereof be communicated to the applicant within a period of 2 weeks therefrom.
6. Needless to say that such order should be reasoned and speaking and should be based on the rules, regulations and policy of the respondent authority and once a decision is arrived at same should be communicated immediately to the applicant within a period of 2 weeks. If the applicant is found entitled to the relief as claimed in the O.A., the same shall be extended to him within a period of 2 months from the date of taking a decision on the representation.
7. With this, the O.A. is disposed of. There shall be no orders as to costs."
It is the contention of the petitioner before us that though, while passing the above order the learned Tribunal also directed the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the present posting of the 4 petitioner at the Regional Office at Barrackpore, that has not gone down in the order inadvertently. It is also the contention of the petitioner that two other similarly circumstanced Data Processing Assistant filed similar original application, those were disposed of passing identical orders in their favour directing the respondent authority to consider their respective representations as also directing further the parties to maintain status quo with regard to their respective place of present posting till disposal of their representations and communication of the decision of the authority to them.
As a consequence, the petitioner filed a miscellaneous application in connection with the above original application before the learned Tribunal for variation/modification of the above order. The next date of hearing of the above application has been fixed on April 17, 2018.
In the meantime, the respondent authority passed an order under Memo No.Pers/RO/BKP/P&T/Vol.VII/T-273 dated April 4, 2018 releasing the petitioner from his present place of 5 posting for joining to his transferred post at the Regional Office at Shilong.
It is submitted by Sri Arun Kumar Mondal, Enforcement Officer, Regional Office at Barrackpore duly authorized by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner of the respondent organization to appear on behalf of the respondents, that even after filing the miscellaneous application in connection with the original application bearing O.A. No. 342 of 2018, no restraining order was passed by the learned Tribunal staying release of the petitioner, so the order impugned to the second original application bearing O.A. No. 467 of 2018 was passed. According to him, no restraining order has yet been passed by the learned Tribunal in respect of the above second original application also. According to him, there is no bar and/or impedement to release the petitioner.
Having heard the petitioner and Sri Arun Kumar Mondal appearing in person and also considering the facts and circumstances involved in this matter, we find that the original application bearing O.A. No. 342 of 2018 was disposed of by the learned Tribunal on March 9, 2018 with a direction 6 upon the respondent no.4 to dispose of the representation of the applicant dated March 2, 2018 by passing a reasoned and speaking order which should be based on Rules, Regulations and policy of the respondent authority.
Therefore, we are of the opinion that though the learned Tribunal did not enter into the merits of the claim of the petitioner, the learned Tribunal found prima facie case in favour of the petitioner as a result there was a direction upon the respondent authority to dispose of the representation of the petitioner taking into consideration the Rules, Regulations and policy of the respondent authority.
Therefore, we find some substance in the submission made by the petitioner that though there was a direction to maintain status quo with regard to the present posting of the petitioner, the same had not gone down in the order inadvertently.
It will not be out of context to record that we came across two writ petitions filed by two petitioners holding the post of Data Processing Assistant in the same organization where the subject matters for consideration were similar orders of transfers. The 7 above writ applications were bearing Nos. W.P.C.T. No. 18 of 2018 and W.P.C.T. No. 19 of 2018 respectively.
The aforesaid writ petitions were arising out of the original application bearing O.A. No.326 of 2018 (In Re: Amit Sengupta - Vs.- The Union of India & Ors.) and O.A. No. 327 of 2018 (In Re: Siddhartha Shankar Maurya -Vs. - The Union of India & Ors.), both the above original applications were disposed of by the learned Tribunal on March 5, 2018.
The direction upon the respondent no.4 by the learned Tribunal to maintain status quo with regard to the present places of posting of the petitioners in the above matters shows bona fide and substance on the part of the petitioner to approach us in this writ petition.
Therefore, the operation/further operation of the order passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-I under his Memo No. Pers/RO/BKP/P&T/Vol.VII/T-273 dated April 4, 2018 be stayed till disposal of the original application bearing O.A. No. 467 of 2018 or till disposal of the representation of the petitioner dated March 2, 2018 8 as also the communication of the decision of the authority to him in terms of the final order dated March 9, 2018 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 342 of 2018, whichever is earlier.
Needless to point out that the final order dated March 9, 2018 passed by the learned Tribunal in O.A. No. 342 of 2018 remains unaffected.
Since nothing further remains to be decided in this writ petition, the same stands disposed of.
There will be, however, no order as to costs. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible on compliance of all necessary formalities.
(Debasish Kar Gupta, J.) (Shampa Sarkar, J.)