Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. At the outset, we may note that in Kayakkodi Post Office, she was working as GDS MD in the revised TRCA of 4220-75-6470. The invitation for applications for appointment as GDSBPM, Cheekkonnummal West was in the TRCA of 2745-50-4245.

4. The order that was impugned before the Tribunal also stood in the form of Annexure R1 dated 20/4/2012 whereby the Assistant Postmaster General(S & V) had informed Postmaster General, Northern Region, Calicut that the request of the respondent for transfer was considered by the competent authority but rejected in view of the fact that the residence of the GDS does not fall in the delivery jurisdiction of the proposed post office or in the post village. This was the only reason that was stated in Annexure R1. In  the reply statement filed before the Tribunal, the establishment further pleaded that the rejection of the request for transfer was on the ground that the transfer was sought to a post with lower TRCA. It was stated that a decision was taken to allow transfer to GDS only against the post having the same or higher TRCA. Reverting to Annexure A6, we may note that the said communication addressed from the Assistant Director General of Staff in the office of the Postmaster General to Additional Private Secretary to Minister of State for Home Affairs in the Government of India also shows that a decision has been taken to allow transfer of GDS only against the post having same or higher TRCA.

6. In this original petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the establishment fundamentally focussed its attack to the contents of paragraph 10 of the Tribunal's order which would protect the TRCA of the respondent in which she is working before the proposed transfer. 

7. For one thing, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent before us, no such plea on the basis of comparable nature of different TRCAs was projected before the Tribunal through pleadings on the basis of Annexure R1 before it. The decision rendered by the establishment rejecting respondent's request for transfer was put only on the ground preferably to her residence. Learned counsel for the respondent further points out that even in the original petition filed under Article 227, no case is built on any issue preferably to non- comparable nature of different TRCAs and as to whether a particular person could be transferred from a higher TRCA to lower TRCA and yet, establishment to protect her TRCA.

9. Having regard to the aforesaid, we may now proceed to note the couple of judgments referred to by the counsel for parties. In Sub Divisional Inspector of Post Offices v. C.A.T [2000 (3) KLT 541], this Court held that the grant of transfer is not merely at the discretion of the department and when an employee satisfies all the conditions required for transfer, the claim of transfer is not to be rejected. We may note that the facts of this case do not touch upon any aspects regarding TRCA. Coming to Senior Superintendent of Post Offices v. Raji Mol [2004 (1) KLT 183], this Court noted that so far as appointment by transfer is concerned, the rule is that a  person may transfer from one post to another post, provided, the post is in same rank and scale of pay. In certain service, even appointment by transfer to higher post is permissible. The Division Bench laid down that however, in a case where a person working on a lower post seeks appointment by transfer to a higher post than the one held by him, the Department can consider his claim and every eligible person has right to be considered. That judgment was also delivered without making any reference to any difference between the concept of TRCA either in the form of scale of pay or quantum of amount to be drawn in TRCA vis-a-vis, the provisions contained in FR 22(1)(a)(i) or (ii) of the Fundamental Rules. Therefore, the distinction between TRCA, central pay etc. were no matters of focal attention by the Division Bench.

10. We may note that the Full Bench of the Tribunal, on matters which were ultimately fell for consideration of the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) Nos.13112/2009 and connections, rejected the prayer of the employees for a  declaration that they are entitled to have pay fixed as per Fundamental Rules noted above. However, Full Bench had declared that TRCA drawn shall be protected and the same fixed in the TRCA applicable to the transferred post and if there is no such stage, the TRCA shall be fixed at the stage below the TRCA drawn, the balance being treated as personal allowance, to be adjusted in future annual increase.