B. Ram Babu Vs. the Sr.Divisional Engineer (Co-ord), South Central Railway and Others

B. Ram Babu vs The Sr.Divisional Engineer (Co-ord), South Central Railway and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Hyderabad Decided Jan 19, 2009

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/940305

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/940305
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Hyderabad
Judge: P. Lakshmana Reddy, Vice-Chairman &Amp; the Honourable Mr. R. Santhanam, Member (Admn).
Decided On: Jan 19, 2009
Case Number: Original Application No.32 of 2009
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

B. Ram Babu

Advocate Counsel for the Applicant : K. Phani Raju,Advocate. Counsel for the Respondents : V. Rajeswara Rao, SC for Rlys.

Respondent

The Sr.Divisional Engineer (Co-ord), South Central Railway and Others

Excerpt

oral order {as per hon'ble mr. justice p.lakshmana reddy, vice chairman } heard mr.k.phani raju, learned counsel for the applicant and mr.v.rajeswara rao, learned standing counsel for the respondents. 2. the grievance of the applicant herein is that he has been transferred vide order dated 29.12.2008 to vijayawada in the middle of the academic year and his daughter is appearing for final year examinations of intermediate in the month of march/april and his mother is aged 74 years and also sick. though he submitted a representation on 22.09.2008 even before the transfer orders are passed, he has been transferred without disposing of his representation. learned counsel for the respondents contended that as the applicant completed his tenure of four years, he has been transferred on account of administrative exigency and therefore this tribunal cannot interfere with such discretionary orders. learned counsel for the applicant contended that no officer is posted in his place at gudivada and there is likely hood of vacancies also at rajahmundry to which place the applicant made a request in the event of his transfer. 3. however, the fact remains that the applicant made his representation explaining his difficulties and also mentioned his choice of place in the event of transfer after the completion of his tenure. it is also not disputed that the said representation is not yet disposed of. therefore, we consider that this is a fit case to dispose of the oa at the stage of admission itself with a direction to the respondents to consider the representation made by the applicant dated 22.09.2008 and dispose of the same in accordance with rules within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. till the representation is disposed of, the applicant may be retained at gudivada. 4. o.a. is accordingly disposed of. there shall be no order as to costs.

Full Judgment

ORAL ORDER

{As per Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.Lakshmana Reddy, Vice Chairman }

Heard Mr.K.Phani Raju, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr.V.Rajeswara Rao, learned standing counsel for the respondents.

2. The grievance of the applicant herein is that he has been transferred vide order dated 29.12.2008 to Vijayawada in the middle of the academic year and his daughter is appearing for final year examinations of Intermediate in the month of March/April and his mother is aged 74 years and also sick. Though he submitted a representation on 22.09.2008 even before the transfer orders are passed, he has been transferred without disposing of his representation. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that as the applicant completed his tenure of four years, he has been transferred on account of administrative exigency and therefore this Tribunal cannot interfere with such discretionary orders. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that no officer is posted in his place at Gudivada and there is likely hood of vacancies also at Rajahmundry to which place the applicant made a request in the event of his transfer.

3. However, the fact remains that the applicant made his representation explaining his difficulties and also mentioned his choice of place in the event of transfer after the completion of his tenure. It is also not disputed that the said representation is not yet disposed of. Therefore, we consider that this is a fit case to dispose of the OA at the stage of admission itself with a direction to the respondents to consider the representation made by the applicant dated 22.09.2008 and dispose of the same in accordance with rules within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till the representation is disposed of, the applicant may be retained at Gudivada.

4. O.A. is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

Same Court & Year Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Hyderabad · 2009 Same Parties B. Ram Babu vs The Sr.Divisional Engineer (Co-ord), South Cen... Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge P. Lakshmana Reddy, Vice-Chairman &Amp; the Honourable Mr. R....