Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: zonal transfer in Vivek Kumar vs M/O Railways on 20 February, 2019Matching Fragments
---
Heard Dr. A. Raghukumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Mrs.A.P.Lakshmi, learned SC for Railways for the respondents.1
2. The applicant who is working as Station Master, Gr.C working in Guntakal division of South Central Railway and applied for inter-zonal transfer. His application was forwarded to the respective zone and the respective zone accepted the request and agreed to take him to their zone on inter-zonal transfer. There are several other employees like the applicant in the present O.A. Some inter-zonal transfers were given effect to and some were not. Aggrieved by the same, some of the employees whose requests for inter-zonal transfers were considered but were not relieved, approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. Nos/020/258 to 262, 272, 390 to 392, 444 to 448, 559, 560, 1080, 1081 & 1129 to 1132/2015. The Tribunal disposed of the O.As on merits by a common order dated 21.4.2016 and directed the respondent Railways to relieve the applicants therein within the time prescribed in the said order. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents filed Writ Petition No.31544/ 2016 & batch. The Writ Petitions were dismissed by the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court by order dated 31.10.2017 confirming the order passed by the Tribunal and directed the Railway administration to effect the inter-zonal transfers in respect of the respondents therein by 28.2.2018 by relieving them to enable them to join in their transferred places. To facilitate the respondents in the Writ Petition, the Railway Recruitment Board was further directed to complete the process of recruitment by 31.1.2018. The applicant in the instant O.A approached the Tribunal praying for the same relief. Their grievance is that even though several years have elapsed, their inter-zonal transfer was not given effect to and he was not relieved from the respective place to enable him to join in the transferred place.
3. The respondents inter-alia contended as follows:
i) The applications of the employees are registered basing on zonal priority. There are 1006 vacancies of Goods Guards existing as on date over the entire zone and 421 in Secunderabad Division. Therefore, a decision was made to relieve the candidates only after the position is improved since Station Master post is a sensitive safety category directly connected with train operations. They refuted the contentions of the applicant that the Northern Railway is still willing to accommodate the applicant. According to the respondents, the no objection given is conditional and its validity period is already over. It is further contended by the respondents that the applicant has no right for inter-zonal transfer and in the exigencies of service, the request for inter-zonal transfer can be rejected. According to the respondents, the applicant, has no claim as perspective right for transfer to another Railway or another establishment and, therefore, according to the respondents, it is not mandatory on their part to relieve the applicant.
9. The judgement relied on by the learned Standing Counsel, in our view, is not applicable to the facts of the present case. The said decision relates to appointment and the Supreme Court with reference to the facts of the case took a view that the applicant only after knowing about the decision rendered by the High Court in favour of some other candidates approached the High Court and, therefore, they are not entitled for the relief which was given to the applicants before the High Court. The fact situation in the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in the present OA is distinguishable. In the case before the Supreme Court, the appellants therein sought a mandamus in respect of their right to appointment. In the present O.A, the request of the applicant for their inter-zonal transfer was already considered by the Railway administration and they approached the Tribunal as the same was not given effect to even after several years. Since the inter-zonal transfers of the applicant and other employees were sought to be given effect to by the Railway administration in a time bound manner basing on priority list, at no point of time the applicants in the instant cases were rejected of their request for inter-zonal transfer. Since as per the policy of Railways, it has to be done in a time bound manner, the applicants waited for implementation and as it was not done within a reasonable time, they approached the Tribunal. Therefore, we are not inclined to accept the contention that the relief prayed for by the applicant in the present O.A. is barred by limitation u/S 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act.
12. After rendering the aforementioned judgement by the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court, the Respondent Railways ought to have taken steps to relieve the employees whose requests for inter-zonal transfers are accepted. But the Railway administration only gave effect to the order passed by the Hon'ble high Court in the above batch of Writ Petitions.
13. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the view that a direction requires to be given to the respondent Railways to release the applicant so as to enable him to join in the respective transferred places pursuant to the inter-zonal transfer. Therefore, the respondents are directed to take steps to relieve the applicant to the transferred places within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order.