Kerala High Court
Union Of India vs Jayalalitha.P.V on 30 September, 2011
Bench: Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, B.P.Ray
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALAAT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.P.RAY
WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2013/17TH ASWINA, 1935
OP (CAT).No. 1886 of 2012 (Z)
------------------------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER IN OA 790/2010 of CENTRALADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH DATED 30-09-2011
PETITIONER(S):
--------------------------
1. UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, NEW DELHI
2. THE CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL
KERALA CIRCLE, TRIVANDRUM 695 033.
3. THE POST MASTER GENERAL
NORTHERN REGION, KOZHIKODE 673 011.
4. THE DIRECTOR OF POSTAL SERVICES
NORTHERN REGION, KOZHIKODE 673 011.
5. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICERS,
KANNUR DIVISION, KANNUR 670 001
6. THE SUB DIVISIONAL INSPECTOR OF POST OFFICER
PAYYANNUR SUB DIVISION, PAYYANNUR 670 307.
BY ADV. SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, CGC
RESPONDENT(S):
----------------------------
1. JAYALALITHA.P.V.
W/O.V.V.RAJAN, GDSMP,CRPF CAMP
ARAVACHAL P.O, RESIDING AT RAJAPRIYA HOUSE
CRPF CAMPARVACHAL POST, PIN 670 353.
2. THARUNIMA K
KAPX376, PERUMTHATTA VEETTIL, THZHEKURUNTH
KANKAL POST, VIA PAYYANNUR 670 307.
R1 BYADV.SRI.P.K.RAVISANKAR
R2 BYADV.SRI.M.SASINDRAN
R2 BYADV.SRI.S.SHYAM KUMAR
THIS OP (CAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09-10-2013, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP (CAT).No. 1886 of 2012 (Z)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS :
--------------------------------------
EXHIBIT P1. TRUE COPY OF THE OA NO.790/2010 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS.
ANNEXURE A7.COPY OF THE MEMO NO.B3/KANKOL BO/2010 DATED 25.5.2010 ISSUED
BY THE 3RDRESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE A9.COPY OF THE ORDER NO.SP/OA-500/2010 DATED 24.8.2010 ISSUED BY
THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE A10.COPY OF THE ORDER NO.STAFF/23/02/CH II DATED18.8.2010 ISSUED BY
THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE A1.COPY OF THE LETTER OF APPOINTMENT NO.B3/182 DATED 13.10.1987
ISSUED BY SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, KASARAGOD.
ANNEXURE A2.COPY OF MEMO NO.B3/KANKOL/EDSO DATED AT KANNUR -1 DATED
27.1.2010 ISSUED BY SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, KASARAGOD.
ANNEXURE A3.COPY OF REPRESENTATIONDATED 29.1.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE
APPLICANT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE A3(A).ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF ANNEXURE A3.
ANNEXURE A4.COPY OF LETTER NO.GL-17/09-10 DATED 9.2.2010 ISSUED BY THE 4TH
RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
ANNEXURE A5.COPY OF THE PAY SLIP OF THE APPLICANT FOR THE MONTH OF MARCH 2010
ANNEXURE A5(a).COPY OF THE PAY SLIPS OF THE APPLICANT FOR THE MONTH APRIL 2010.
ANNEXURE A6.COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 4.5.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE A8.COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.7.2010 IN OA 500 OF 2010 OF THE
HONOURABLE TRIBUNAL.
ANNEXURE A11.TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION 31.8.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE
APPLICANT BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2. TRUE COPY OF REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONERS.
ANNEXURE R1.TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.14-16/2011/PAP (PT) DATED 11.10.2004.
EXHIBIT P3. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.09.2010 IN OA NO.790/2010.
EXHIBIT P4. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN RA NO.4/2012 IN OA 790/2010 DATED 15.3.2012.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :
----------------------------------------
NIL
// TRUE COPY //
sou. P.A. TO JUDGE
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN & B. P. RAY, JJ.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
O.P(CAT). No. 1886 of 2012
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 9th day of October, 2013
J U D G M E N T
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.
Heard the learned Senior Central Government Counsel on behalf of the petitioners and the learned counsel for the private respondents, one of whom was an applicant before the Central Administrative Tribunal. We refer to them by name hereinafter.
2. The applicant, Jayalalitha was appointed as Extra Departmental Branch Post Master, Aravanchal on 1.10.1987. In January, 2010, the establishment decided to upgrade that Branch Post Office to a Departmental Sub Post Office. With nearly 23 years of service to her credit, Jayalalitha had to be redeployed. She requested to be posted as Gramin Dak Sevak Sub Post Master at Kankol, near her residence. She applied on 20.1.2010 for redeployment to that post which carried TCRA similar to that drawn by her. On 27.1.2010, she was intimated by the Superintendent that the Kankol E.D. Sub Post Office is to be down graded to ED Branch Office and if Jayalalitha is willing to be O.P(CAT).1886/12 2 posted there as Branch Post Master, she may submit a fresh request. She made that request by submission on 29.1.2010 declaring her willingness to be redeployed as GDSBPM, Kankol. On 9.2.2010, she was issued a letter by her immediate Supervising Officer directing her to join as GDSMP, CRPF Camp, Aravachal, consequent on the upgradation of the Aravanchal Sub Post Office. She obeyed that and joined. Thereafter, she moved the Tribunal apprehending that the department proposed to fill up the GDSBPM, Kankol, ignoring her pending representation and expression of consent. She obtained a direction of the Tribunal to consider her representation in that regard.
3. What ultimately turns out is that the establishment had notified the post of GDSBMP, Kankol and selected Tharunima, the second respondent herein for appointment to that post. She was intimated on 3.9.2010 about such selection. Original application from which this original petition arises was instituted before the Tribunal on 13.9.2010 and an interim order was issued by the Tribunal on 15.9.2010 directing the establishment not to take further steps to fill up the post of GDSBPM, Kankol without prior order of the Tribunal. Tharunima then filed a miscellaneous application seeking impleadment in the proceedings before the Tribunal holding out that she was given intimation of selection on O.P(CAT).1886/12 3 3.9.2010 and consequently she has submitted a declaration on having taken residence within the delivery jurisdiction of that Post Office on 11.9.2010. The attempt of Tharunima was to demonstrate that her selection was concluded before interim order dated 15.9.2010.
4. Among the decisions of the Department which were challenged before the Tribunal, we see that Annexure A10 was issued intimating that the Chief Post Master General has intimated vide letter dated 27.7.2010 that the request of Jayalalitha has been considered, but rejected in view of the fact that the transfer sought does not involve any public interest. We are surprised that the Chief Post Master General proceeded in a wholly erroneous premise. We say so because, the request of Jayalalitha was not a request for mere transfer from one station to another as understood in the realm of employment. She had to moved out from the post in which she was working for about 23 years on account of the Department's decision for upgrading the office. The consequential out flow came through the establishment requiring her to express her willingness through the Superintendent of Post Office, who had immediate control over her. Therefore, the question of public interest being weighed against her, that too, by considering the request as merely one O.P(CAT).1886/12 4 for transfer from one station to another does not arise. In this view of the matter, the refusal of the establishment to give Jayalalitha her eligible posting in terms of the consent given by her was essentially illegal.
5. The establishment cannot be much aggrieved by the relief granted to Jayalalitha. It has a technical problem that Tharunima, who was selected to be appointed to Kankol, has been ordered to be appointed in Aravanchal instead of Kankol, for which she was selected and offered appointment subject to her finding the residence within the delivery areas of that Post Office. We are sitting in jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. Against the decision of the Tribunal, we may even consider the case as to whether interference is called for by us in terms of Article 226 of the Constitution. Yet, what we see is that the Tribunal has nicely balanced requirement of two women, one with 23 years of service and one yet hopping into service to be parked in two different stands, leaving aside the technical niceties as pointed out by the establishment. Such arrangement as ordered by the Tribunal does not create any manifest injustice or such illegality as would affect the establishment. The order of the Tribunal does not lay down any principle of law which would tie down the establishment in future cases. At the best, the O.P(CAT).1886/12 5 Tribunal's direction to give Tharunima the amounts if any she had spent in obtaining the residence in Kankol could be treated as something that could have been avoided. Though we would say that in a structured social welfare State like India, such a direction cannot be treated as wholly out of place. But, we record that the establishment points out that as of now, it is a nonprofit generating one and trying to lock up many of its doors by reducing the establishment structure.
6. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order is sustained on all counts, except for the direction of the Tribunal to pay Tharunima any component towards rent advance etc. as contained in the last sentence of paragraph 9 of the impugned order of the Tribunal. For all other purposes, the impugned order is confirmed.
The original petition is ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE Sd/-
B. P. RAY, JUDGE
sou. // True copy //