Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sri Arvind Kumar vs Union Of India And Others on 8 April, 2014
Author: Sanjib Banerjee
Bench: Sanjib Banerjee
1
Serial No.46(M/L).
April 8, 2014.
SG
W.P. No.29404 (W) of 2013
Sri Arvind Kumar
-versus-
Union of India and others
Mr Achin Kumar Majumder
Mr Pratik Majumder
... for the petitioner.
The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the petitioner
indicating his willingness to forego a promotion in order that the
petitioner would be transferred to the North Eastern Railway, the
respondent authorities have declined the transfer.
The petitioner, who was then a constable with the South Eastern Railway, applied for transfer on personal grounds from South Eastern Railway to North Eastern Railway. During such time and before any transfer order was made, the petitioner was promoted to the rank of head constable. There is rule or practice in vogue that head constables are not transferred. As such, though the request of other constables were considered favourably, by a letter of June 22, 2012 the South Eastern Railway sought a clarification from the Director, Railway Protection Force as to how the case of the petitioner and another similarly-placed promotee should be dealt with.
On July 23, 2012 the Inspector General cum Chief Security Officer of Railway Protection Force, South Eastern Railway informed the senior Divisional Security Commissioner at Adra that the 2 Railway Board had by its letter of July 19, 2012 intimated that "those who have been promoted in present Railway (would have) to either forego their promotion or forego their transfer."
Upon the petitioner being informed of such decision, the petitioner issued a letter on August 3, 2012 indicating the petitioner's decision to forego his promotion due to the acute domestic problem faced by the petitioner and the need for the transfer. The petitioner has now challenged an order of July 18, 2013 by which the petitioner's application for transfer has been rejected only on the ground that the petitioner had been promoted to the post of head constable in the interregnum.
The Railway authorities refer to another clarification sought on April 16, 2013 by the Inspector General of Railway Protection Force, South Eastern Railway and the reply thereto by the Director, Railway Protection Force dated June 24, 2013. It is evident from such documents that a transfer of any staff in the intermediary group like head constable is impermissible. The respondents have also relied on standing order no.102 issued on March 29, 2010 by the Railway Board.
It appears that the Railways have been hypertechnical in dealing with the petitioner, particularly since an option had clearly been given to the petitioner in July, 2012 for the petitioner to either forego his promotion or forego his transfer whereupon the petitioner had made an informed choice to the detriment of his career.
It does not appear from the Railway Board's reply of June 24, 2013 to the letter issued by IG, RPF, SE Railway on April 16, 2013 that the Railway Board considered the fact that it had earlier 3 advised its officials in South Eastern Railway to allow the petitioner to exercise the option.
There is arbitrariness in the Railway Board's rejection of the letter issued by the IG, RPF, SE Railway without assigning any reason and without justifying how the Railway Board could act in direct contravention of its earlier stated stand as evident from its letter of July, 2012 issued to the South Eastern Railway.
The impugned order of July 18, 2013 and the decision of the Railways to deny the petitioner's transfer are set aside and quashed and the respondent authorities are directed to communicate a decision to the petitioner on the basis of the choice that the petitioner was permitted to exercise and the manner in which the petitioner exercised such choice in the letter of August 3, 2012.
The respondents should ensure that an appropriate decision is communicated to the petitioner without undue delay. WP No.29404 (W) of 2013 is allowed as above without any order as to costs.
Certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be urgently made available to the parties, subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
(Sanjib Banerjee, J.) 4