Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Namrata S. Kumar vs Union Of India Through on 25 September, 2014
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH O.A. No.2925/2014 New Delhi, this the 25th day of September, 2014 HONBLE SHRI V. AJAY KUMAR, MEMBER (J) HONBLE SHRI P.K. BASU, MEMBER (A) Namrata S. Kumar S/o ShriAbhinav Kumar R/o 803, A1, Hana Towers, Khaldiya, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates (UAE) . Applicant (Through Shri Nishakant Pandey, Advocate) Versus Union of India through Foreign Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs South Block, New Delhi. .Respondent (Through Shri Rajinder Nischal, Advocate) ORDER Mr. P.K. Basu, Member (A):
The applicant is an Indian Foreign Service (IFS) officer of 1997 batch and is presently posted at Embassy of India, Abu Dhabi. Her three year term is expiring on 25.09.2014. She has represented to the respondents to allow her to continue at Abu Dhabi for six more months i.e.upto 31.03.2015 when the present academic session of her son, who is studying at Abu Dhabi, comes to an end. The ground on which the applicant is seeking extension of her term by six months is education of her son, which, according to the applicant, is something very normal and even allowed by the respondents in a routine manner. It has been alleged that the respondents attitude has been discriminatory in this regard by not granting her extension whereas others have been granted such relief from time to time.
2. The applicant further states that her transfer has been made in order to adjust one Ms. Neeta Bhushan, whose husband is posted in Dubai. So, while the respondents are favouring Ms. Neeta Bhushan, they have been vindictive towards her.
3. The learned counsel for the respondents clarified that the applicant in her representation dated 6.02.2014 had stated as follows:
13. Does the officer intend to seek extension on educational grounds?If yes, please give details including anticipated period of extension: I do not intend to seek extension beyond my term in this Mission on the basis of educational grounds.
4. It was argued that officers posted in Missions/ Posts abroad are expected to anticipate the educational requirements of their children well in advance of their completion of tenure as they spend a considerable number of years of their career/ government service in Missions/ Posts abroad. It is submitted that the applicant has incorrectly stated that extension on educational grounds is granted by the Ministry on routine basis. It was mentioned that as a matter of policy, the Ministry grants extension of tenure for a maximum period of one year to only those officers whose children are going into or studying in Class XII or Class X. The extension of tenure of these officers was to ensure that the academic career of the children was not adversely affected in the critical/ final years of school. Extension on educational grounds is not approved by the Ministry in cases of officers who have children studying in junior classes as in the case of the applicant. Moreover, it is clarified that as per government policy, couples are to be posted, as far as possible, in close proximity and that is why Ms. Neeta Bhushanhas been posted at Abu Dhabi as her husband ShriAnuragBhushan has been posted in Dubai. Lastly, it is clarified that the applicants children are studying in CBSE accredited school and there will be no difficulty in their admission in Delhi in mid-session. It is in this background that the representation of the applicant has been rejected and she is requested to relinquish her charge in the last week of September, 2014 vide letter dated 29.08.2014.
5. We are pained to see an officer of the IFS approaching this Tribunal against a routine transfer made by the respondents. Transfers and postings are a routine feature in the career of senior civil servants. In this case, the respondents are allowing the applicant to complete her three year tenure which is ending on 24.09.2014. We agree with the respondents that the applicant knew well in advance the educational requirements of her children. Secondly, the respondents do take lot of care (at a substantial cost to the public exchequer) to ensure that diplomats children do not face inconvenience because of their parents transfer. In this background, trying to hang on to a post abroad resorting to such excuses as have been mentioned is indeed deplorable.
6. In view of above discussion, we find no merit in this OA.
It is, therefore, dismissed. No costs.
( P.K. Basu ) ( V. Ajay Kumar ) Member (A) Member (J) /dkm/