Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
Sultan Ramjani vs M/O Railways on 26 March, 2019
IN THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL:HYDERABAD BENCH
HYDERABAD
08/021/0692/2018
Dated: 26.03.2019
BETWEEN:
SULTAN RAMIANI,
S/o Mohd Ramijani,
Aged about 38 years,
Occ: Station Master, Tarur (TR),
Nanded Divisian,
South Central Railway,
Maharashtra State
Applicant
AND
i. The General Manager,
South Central Railway,
Secunderabad,
2. The Divisional Manager,
Nanded Division
South Central Railway,
Nanded.
3. The General Manager,
West Central Radway,
Jabalpur,
" 4, The Divisional Manager,
Mota Chvision,
West Central Railway,
Rata. .. Respondents
Counsel far the applicants Mr. MVenkanna
Counsel far the respondents 'Mr, N.Srinatha Rag,
SC for Railways.
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO, MEMBER U}
THE HON'BLE MR. B.V.SUDHAKAR, MEMBER {A}
é semenssst ooo Onn
i Lécee g B.
ORAL ORDER
y [Per Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. Kantha Rao, Membert)] Heard Mr. M.Venkanna, learned counsel! for the applicant and Mr. N.Srinatha Rao, learned Standing Counsel for Railways for the respondents.
2. Most of the facts in the OA are not in dispute. Applicant was appointed as Assistant Station Master on 8.8.2007 in South Central Railway. In 2008, he submitted an application seeking inter-zonal transfer to Kota Division of West Central Railway. Admittedly, on the said date, there was a condition that an employee who seeks inter-zonal transfer has to complete five years of residency period. Therefore, no action was taken on the application submitted by the applicant for inter-zonal transfer. Subsequently in 2010, the applicant was promoted as Station Master. He submitted another application seeking inter-zonal transfer in 2011. To this, the applicant submits that, the department directed him to submit a fresh application as he was promoted to the post of Station Master and therefore he made application again in 2OI1. Admittedly, the restriction of completion of five years residency period was relaxed vide letter dated 7 12081 issued by Raibw Board. Therefore, there was no impediment for the department to take action on the application submitted by the applicant in 2011 for inter-zonal transfer. The grievance of the applicant is that though he submitted application in 2011, his name figured in 2014 priority list showing his name much below his juniors, Respondents have contenced in their counter that in 2014 priority list, applicant's name figured at S1.80.234 and none of his juniors in the said list were considered for inter-zonal transfer and therefore applicant should not have any grievance. wey a AEs ak.
ee oe 3 Having vone through the facts of the entire case, we are of the view that the application submitted by the applicant in 2011 seeking inter-zonal transfer should have been considered at that point of time, but his name was included in the priority Hst of 2014, Under these circumstances, the applicant is directed to submit another representation setting forth his grievance and the respondents i turn are directed to consider the case of the applicant considering the fact that he submitted application in 2011 and accordingly decide his priority for inter-zonal transfer and pass appropriate orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the representation.
4. With the above directions, the QA is accordingly disposed of There shall be no order ag ta costs.