Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
Bijay Kumar Rout vs Union Of India on 7 March, 2017
Author: P. Gopinath
Bench: P. Gopinath
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.180/00823 of 2016
Tuesday this the 7th day of March, 2017
CORAM
Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.K.Balakrishnan, Judicial Member
Hon'ble Mrs. P. Gopinath, Administrative Member
Bijay Kumar Rout,
Gate Keeper, SSE/P.Way,
Kottayam, Southern Railway,
Trivandrum Division.
... Applicant
(By Advocate Mr. Siby J Monippally)
Versus
1 Union of India, represented by
Divisional Railway Manager,
Southern Railway, Trivandrum Division.
2 General Manager, South Central Railway
Visakhapattanam,
Andhra Pradesh.
3 Senior Divisional Personnel Officer,
Southern Railway, Trivandrum Division.
... Respondents
(By Advocate Mr. Asif K.H)
This application having been finally heard on 01.03.2017 the
Tribunal on 07.03.2017 delivered the following:
ORDER
Per: Justice N.K.Balakrishnan, Judicial Member The applicant in this case contends that he is entitled to get mutual transfer with Shri KJ Santhsoh Pillai to his home station and for a direction to the respondents to complete the process of mutual transfer. The applicant and Shri Santhosh Pillai mentioned above have submitted application for mutual transfer vide Annexure A1 dated 11.3.2014. A joint declaration was also given by them. The application submitted by Shri Santhosh Pillai to his controlling authority was approved and recommended for further action. According to the applicant he is entitled to get mutual transfer to his home station.
2. The claim is resisted by the respondents contending as follows Applicant belongs to OBC but he has applied for inter-railway mutual transfer with Shri KJ Santhsoh Pillai who belongs to UR category. Mutual transfer can be considered against the same category of persons only. Hence the applicant's request for inter-railway mutual transfer with his counter part was not considered as they do not belong to the same community. Annexure A1 request was submitted on 11.3.2014 whereas the request of Shri Santhosh Pillai was forwarded by the Southern Railway as per Annexure A3 dated 18.9.2014. The claim was not entertained since the Applicant and his counter part Shri Santhosh Pillai belong to two different communities. Hence the respondents prayed for dismissal of the application.
3. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on both sides and have gone through the documents/pleadings on record.
4. The short point that arises for consideration is whether the application for inter-railway mutual transfer submitted by the Applicant is entitled to be granted?
5. The main thrust of the argument advanced on behalf of the respondents is that the applicant and Shri Santhosh Pillai do not belong to the same community. According to them mutual transfer can be allowed only if both of them belong to the same community. But that plea is stoutly opposed by the learned counsel for the applicant contending that the restriction or barrier applies only where one of the claimants is a SC/ST candidate. So far as the OBC candidate is concerned, he is not entitled to get reservation in the matter of promotion. Accelerated promotion is available only to SC/ST candidates and only in such a case the mutual transfer would cause imbalance in the roster.
6. Annexure R1 is the order dated 13.10.2014 where it is stated that the inter-divisional/inter-railway mutual transfers shall be considered only between employees belonging to the same community. Annexure R2 the order dated 26.12.2014 would show that the Applicant herein is to be advised that inter-divisional mutual transfer with Shri Santhosh Pillai cannot be processed due to the fact that they belong to different community.
7. The learned counsel for the applicant would submit that in identical matters this Tribunal had held that there is no reservation for OBC category in the matter of promotion and so there would be no upsetting of the post-based roster or caste equation in the inter-railway/inter-divisional mutual transfer. The plea so raised by the applicant was accepted by the Tribunal. It is stated that the order passed by the Tribunal was confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court. But it is stated that the matter is now pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
8. The applicant herein who is now working in Trivandrum Division seeks a transfer to Vijayawada. According to the applicant Shri Santhsoh Pillai belongs to Kerala and so he wants to come over to Kerala. It is pointed out by the respondents that Shri Santhosh Pilai is not made a party to the proceedings and it is not known whether still he wants to pursue his claim for mutual transfer. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that now the Applicant in this case and Shri Santhosh Pillai are in the promoted post getting a Grade Pay of Rs. 1900/- and so that also is a ground favourable to the applicant since they are now not in the direct recruit entry cadre.
9. Considering all the aspects, we dispose of this Original Application directing the respondents to consider the request for mutual transfer, provided Shri Santhosh Pillai also wants to get a mutual transfer as sought for in Annexures A1 and A2. But it is made clear that the fact that the applicant belongs to OBC and Shri Santhosh Pillai belongs UR will not stand in the way of allowing the application for mutual transfer. Respondents would treat Annexures A1 & A2 as the proper applications submitted for mutual transfer and pass orders accordingly provided Shri Santhosh Pillai the other claimant is also interested in getting an order for mutual transfer as claimed in Annexures A1 and A2. Orders shall be passed within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs.
(Mrs. P. Gopinath) (N. K. Balakrishnan) Administrative Member Judicial Member kspps