Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Anshuman Bhattacharya (Group `A ) vs Union Of India Through on 3 May, 2013
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi O.A.No. 3110/2012 Order Reserved on: 29.04.2013 Order pronounced on 03.05.2013 Honble Shri V. Ajay Kumar, Member (J) Anshuman Bhattacharya (Group `A) Scientist `C in NTRO Aged about 36 years s/o Sh. Tapan Bhattacharya r/o 1-3/126, First Floor, Sector 16 Rohini Delhi 110 085. Applicant (By Advocate: Ms. Ritika Chawla with Sh. M.K.Bhardwaj) Versus Union of India through The Chairman National Technical Research Organization (NTRO) Block-III, Old JNU Campus New Delhi 110 067. Director (Establishment-II) National Technical Research Organization (NTRO) Block-III, Old JNU Campus New Delhi 110 067. Centre Director (CCA) National Technical Research Organization (NTRO) Block-III, Old JNU Campus New Delhi 110 067. Respondents (By Advocate: Sh. Rajesh Katyal) O R D E R
The applicant, a Scientist `C [Group (A)], in the Respondent National Technical Research Organization (NTRO), is aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not considering his request for transfer from Bhuj to Delhi, filed the present OA.
2. It is submitted that as per the Parameters for posting and transfer of NTRO personnel, issued vide Circular dated 30.03.2007 (Annexure A3), a fixed tenure of two years for Doom Dooma and Numaligarh, and a fixed tenure of three years for Bhuj and Dehradun is required for consideration of transfer from these notified Hard Stations to other stations. Vide Corrigendum dated 16.07.2007 (Annexure A4), Bhuj has also been declared as Category `B station, and hence, the persons who worked for a fixed tenure of two years at Bhuj also entitled to be considered for posting out from Bhuj.
3. The applicant submits that while he was working at Delhi he was transferred to Bhuj vide order dated 25.06.2010 and accordingly he joined there on 28.06.2010. Since the applicant completed the required period of two years on 28.06.2012, he submitted representation to transfer him from Bhuj to Delhi on completion of hard posting tenure referring NTRO/Posting/Transfer policy issued on 30.03.2007. The respondents rejected the same vide impugned Annexure A1 dated 10.07.2012 by stating that The policy being referred to by Shri Anshuman Bhattacharya, Scientist `C, is presently under submission to the competent authority for review and revision, and even as per that policy, the tenure of posting at Bhuj is three years, and not two years as mentioned by Shri Anshuman Bhattarcharya, Scientist `C. It was further stated that mere completion of minimum tenure does not entail any individual to be posted out, which depends on other conditions and exigencies of services.
4. Heard Ms. Ritika Chawla with Sh. M.K.Bhardwaj learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Rajesh Katiyal, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the pleadings on record.
5. Ms. Ritika Chawla, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the tenure of three years fixed for Bhuj under Circular dated 30.03.2007 is modified by virtue of Corrigendum dated 16.07.2007 into two years and hence, the applicant is entitled for consideration of his case since he has completed the said tenure of two years at Bhuj on 28.06.2012 itself. She further submits that pendency of review or revision of the transfer policy cannot be a ground for not following the same and unless and until the same is modified or reviewed or revised by the competent authority, the existing policy is to be followed scrupulously.
6. Shri Rajesh Katiyal, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the tenure of three years fixed for Bhuj vide Circular 30.03.2007 is not modified or revised till date. The Corrigendum dated 16.07.2007 (Annexure A4) amended the Order dated 06.12.2006 (Annexure A2) which was issued for the purpose of granting hardship allowances, etc. but nothing to do with the transfer parameters. He further submits that the parameters issued vide Circular dated 30.03.2007 are only for guiding purpose and they does not have any statutory force, and even if an employee completes the said minimum tenure, cannot have any right to be posted out of the Hard Stations.
7. A perusal of the Annexure A2 order dated 06.12.2006 issued for grant of concessions, Annexure A3 Circular dated 30.03.2007 containing the parameters for posting and transfer of NTRO personnel, and the Annexure A4 Corrigendum dated 16.07.2007 reveals that the tenure of three years for Bhuj as fixed under Circular dated 30.03.3007 has not yet modified and that the Corrigendum dated 16.07.2007 is only corrected the Order dated 06.12.2006.
8. It is also trite that the Courts/Tribunals should not interfere in the transfer matters unless the same is vitiated by violation of some statutory provision or suffers from malafides. Since the said conditions are absent in the present case, the impugned order rejecting the claim of the applicant seeking transfer from Bhuj to Delhi cannot be interfered with.
9. However, this order shall not preclude the respondents from considering the case of the applicant, as per rules, for a transfer, if any representation is made by the applicant, on completion of his three years fixed tenure at Bhuj.
10. In the above circumstances, the OA is dismissed. No costs.
(V. Ajay Kumar) Member (J) /nsnrvak/