Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Dinesh Singh Son Of Sh. Sukhdev Singh vs The Union Of India on 29 May, 2019
Bench: Chief Justice, G R Moolchandani
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9612/2019
Dinesh Singh Son of Sh. Sukhdev Singh, Aged About 55 Years, Resident of
2/VI, Nirman Vihar, Sector 2, Vidyadhar Nagar, Jaipur, Presently Posted As
IFA (SWC), Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Defence,
Government of India, South Block, New Delhi-110001
2. Financial Advisor Defence Services, Ministry of Defence,
Government of India, South Block, New Delhi-110001
3. Sh. R.k. Nayak, IDAS, Additional CGDA Holding Charge of
Controller General of Defence Accounts, Ulan Batar Road, Palam,
Delhi Cantt-110010.
4. The Senior Joint Controller of General of Defence Accounts
(Administration), Ulan Batar Road, Palam, Delhi Cantt-110010.
5. The Senior Assistant Controller Of Defence Accounts
(Administration), Ulan Batar Road, Palam, Delhi Cantt-110010.
6. Sh. Himanshu Shankar, IDAS, presently Posted As IFA (SWC)
Jaipur with Additional Charge of IFA 12 Corps, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sunil Samdaria For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G R MOOLCHANDANI Order 29/05/2019 The petitioner is aggrieved by order of Central Administrative Tribunal, which he had approached complaining that the transfer order issued directing him to report at Ambala with additional charge at Jalandhar, is contrary to the existing transfer policy.
The petitioner belongs to the Indian Defence Accounts Service; the relevant transfer policy, which is administered by Defence Placement Board, inter alia, defines the parameters covering transfers including the following :-(Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 05:05:00 AM)
(2 of 3) [CW-9612/2019] 4. Tenure:
a. For the government notified tenure stations and J&K, the laid down provisions will prevail.
b. A minimum tenure of 2 years shall be ensured at an office and 3 years at a station.
c. Overall tenure in a station including one deputation may be 15 years/ and 10 years excluding all deputations.
d. Deputation at Joint Secretary level and above may be in additional to the 15 years' overall tenure/ 10 years' overall tenure.
e. xxxx f. Criteria for considering competing requirements:
. Prevailing GOI provisions.
. Past posting record at the station. . Time spent outside the station.
.Consideration of APARs with incentivization to better performance.
. Past profile of postings and specific area of expertise. . Residual service.
g. Criteria for manning offices for which there are no volunteers:
. Past profile of postings.
.The broad requirement of career progression enumerated in para 2.
h. Long term Training Courses (6 months and above) not to be included for counting tenure at a station.
i. EL/CCL/Study Leave more than 3 months/90 days will be excluded for computing the minimum station tenure of 2 years as per DOP&T guidelines.
The Tribunal after considering the petitioner's submissions, rejected them as unsound and held that there was no illegality or mala fides in the impugned transfer order.
It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that the Tribunal overlooked the fact that the Board did not take into account relevant factors and arbitrarily recommended the transfer. Learned counsel highlighted para 4(c) to say that the tenure which was permissible to the petitioner could have been upto nearly fifteen years and there was no compelling reason to transfer him (Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 05:05:00 AM) (3 of 3) [CW-9612/2019] merely on completion of 4½ years. It is also highlighted that several others - were left undisturbed, and instances of about fifteen persons was alluded to, were allowed to be retained beyond the period (i.e. fifteen years) and in some instances even upto twenty-four years.
This court is of the opinion that the general "hands off" rule of courts under Article 226 in regard to transfer orders has to be applied, but for rare and exceptional circumstances where illegality or complete lack of bona fide is writ large on the face of the record.
In the present case, petitioner had spent 4½ years at the same place of posting - the minimum prescribed under para 4(b) is 2 years. In fact he has spent 4½ years. There is nothing on the record to say that any public servant is entitled to the maximum prescribed tenure. Such maximum prescribed tenure is applicable to the entire career of a public servant.
As far as the reference to third parties goes, the court is of the opinion that such infractions of a transfer policy - even if accepted, would not confer a cause of action on a petitioner who insists that he should be posted at one particular place for a duration longer than what is deemed necessary by his public employer.
For the above reasons, there is no merit in the petition which is accordingly dismissed.
(G R MOOLCHANDANI),J (S. RAVINDRA BHAT),CJ db/ashu /82 (Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 05:05:00 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)