K. Ramachandran Vs. the Chief Personnel Officer Southern Railway Headquarters Office Chennai and Others - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/938083
CourtCentral Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
Decided OnMar-30-2012
Case NumberO.A. NO 1031 OF 2011
JudgeTHE HONOURABLE MRS. K. NOORJEHAN, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
AppellantK. Ramachandran
RespondentThe Chief Personnel Officer Southern Railway Headquarters Office Chennai and Others
Advocates:For the Applicant: Martin G Thottan, Advocate. For the Respondents: P. Haridas, Advocate.
Excerpt:
1. the applicant, a helper (grade i) in the electrical section is aggrieved by his transfer from thrissur to ernakulam. 2. the applicant joined the catering service of the respondent's department initially and consequent upon privatization of catering service in railway he was appointed as helper(electrical) on 26.09.2001 and posted at alappuzha. as he is a native of nenmara in palghat, he sought a transfer to thrissur and joined there on 26.09.2007. he is commuting from his residence to thrissur. while so, he was surprised to get annexure a-1 transfer order transferring him to ernakulam. generally group d employees like helpers are not subject to periodical transfers. on enquiry he came to know that he was transferred out on account of surplusage. while three employees who stand transferred vide annexure a-1 are junior to him, few more juniors are retained at thrissur. the applicant avers that persons like mr.p.alagarsamy, mrs.k.s sainaba and mr.c.k narayankutty are juniors to him. he holds the action of the third respondent in transferring the applicant by retaining them on extraneous consideration as highly arbitrary and violative of articles 14 and 16 of the constitution. according to him, transfer in the middle of the academic year causes substantial hardship. the applicant is presently in sick list. apprehending his immediate relief, the applicant has approached this tribunal for redressal of his grievance. 3. the respondents have filed a reply statement, controverting the contentions of the applicant. they submitted that transfer is an incident of service and it is settled law that it is the prerogative of the executive to decide as to who is to be transferred when and where, to ensure smooth and effective functioning of an organisation. they placed reliance on the decisions of the apex court and various tribunals in this regard as noted below:- (i) union of india vs h.n kirtanis reported in 1989(3) slj 44(sc) (ii) union of india and ors vs janardan debanath and anr reported in 2004(4) scc 245 (iii) shimmit utsch india ltd. and anr. vs. west bengal transport infrastructure development corporation ltd., and ors reported in slp(c) no.11621 of 2006 with 11988 of 2010 (iv) silpi bose vs state of bihar reported in 1991 supp (2) scc 659 : 1992 scc (lands) 127:1991 17 atc 935 (v) s.c saxena vs union of india reported in (2006) 9 scc 583 (vi) nirmalendu bhardan vs gm, nf railways reported in 1986(2) slj (cat) 108 4. according to the respondents, the applicant has rushed to this tribunal instead of exhausting administrative remedies available to him in the relevant service rules. he has not chosen to redress his grievance before the respondents. they conceded that they allowed two of his juniors to be retained at thrissur for good and sufficient reasons. in respect of ck narayankutty, he is due for retirement on 30.06.2012. as regards shri alagarsamy, his wife is a mental patient and has been taking psychiatric treatment for the past 11 years at the elite mission hospital, trichur. smt.k.s sainaba is not his junior as alleged by the applicant. in support of their contention they produced the seniority list in the grade of helper grade i, wherein smt k.s sainaba is shown as one place senior to him. seniority list dated 01.01.2011 at annexure r-2 refers. 5. the applicant has filed a rejoinder and produced annexure a-2 seniority list. according to the applicant, his date of initial appointment is 26.9.2001, whereas that of k.s sainaba is 11.04.2002 and both of them were promoted to the present grade on the same date. therefore, the applicant is senior to k.s sainaba. in annexure a-2 list his name is at serial no.81 while her name is at 80. according to the applicant it is only a clerical error. the applicant avers that one shri k.a mohammed has sought voluntary retirement which stands approved. moreover, shri c.k narayanankutty is due for retirement on 30.06.2012. therefore, he requests for consideration of his retention at thrissur against one of the vacancies arising in the immediate future. 6. respondents filed additional reply statement and submitted that k.s sainaba is shown as his senior in the provisional seniority list published on 31.08.2006. the applicant figures at serial no.15 whereas smt.k.s sainaba is at serial no.14 (annexure r-1). they submitted that the same position is shown in the annexure r-1 seniority list published on 1.1.2011. 7. heard the counsels for the parties and perused the documents. 8. the undisputed fact is that the transfer of the applicant was to reduce surplusage in the electrical section at thrissur. according to the applicant two vacancies are due to arise on account of the superannuation of shri ck narayanankutty and voluntary retirement of shri k.a muhammed. the fact remains that the applicant sought a request transfer to his native place at nenmara and joined at thrissur in the year 2007. therefore, the respondents can consider his case for retention at thrissur if the vacancies which are to arise in the near future are required to be filled up. hence it will be in the interest of justice to direct the applicant to submit his representation to the third respondent for his transfer from ernakulam to thrissur. 9. in the facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant is directed to make a detailed representation to the third respondent and the third respondent is directed to consider the representation of the applicant, take an appropriate decision and intimate the same to the applicant within six weeks from the date of receipt of the applicant's representation. the interim order will be in force till his representation is disposed of. the original application is disposed of as above. no costs.
Judgment:

1. The applicant, a helper (Grade I) in the Electrical Section is aggrieved by his transfer from Thrissur to Ernakulam.

2. The applicant joined the Catering Service of the Respondent's department initially and consequent upon privatization of Catering Service in Railway he was appointed as Helper(Electrical) on 26.09.2001 and posted at Alappuzha. As he is a native of Nenmara in Palghat, he sought a transfer to Thrissur and joined there on 26.09.2007. He is commuting from his residence to Thrissur. While so, he was surprised to get Annexure A-1 transfer order transferring him to Ernakulam. Generally Group D employees like helpers are not subject to periodical transfers. On enquiry he came to know that he was transferred out on account of surplusage. While three employees who stand transferred vide Annexure A-1 are junior to him, few more juniors are retained at Thrissur. The applicant avers that persons like Mr.P.Alagarsamy, Mrs.K.S Sainaba and Mr.C.K Narayankutty are juniors to him. He holds the action of the third respondent in transferring the applicant by retaining them on extraneous consideration as highly arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. According to him, transfer in the middle of the academic year causes substantial hardship. The applicant is presently in sick list. Apprehending his immediate relief, the applicant has approached this Tribunal for redressal of his grievance.

3. The respondents have filed a reply statement, controverting the contentions of the applicant. They submitted that transfer is an incident of service and it is settled law that it is the prerogative of the executive to decide as to who is to be transferred when and where, to ensure smooth and effective functioning of an organisation. They placed reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court and various Tribunals in this regard as noted below:-

(i) Union of India Vs H.N Kirtanis reported in 1989(3) SLJ 44(SC)

(ii) Union of India and Ors vs Janardan Debanath and anr reported in 2004(4) SCC 245

(iii) Shimmit Utsch India Ltd. and anr. Vs. West Bengal Transport Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd., and ors reported in SLP(C) No.11621 of 2006 with 11988 of 2010

(iv) Silpi Bose vs state of Bihar reported in 1991 Supp (2) SCC 659 : 1992 SCC (LandS) 127:1991 17 ATC 935

(v) S.C Saxena vs Union of India reported in (2006) 9 SCC 583

(vi) Nirmalendu Bhardan vs GM, NF Railways reported in 1986(2) SLJ (CAT) 108

4. According to the respondents, the applicant has rushed to this Tribunal instead of exhausting administrative remedies available to him in the relevant service Rules. He has not chosen to redress his grievance before the respondents. They conceded that they allowed two of his juniors to be retained at Thrissur for good and sufficient reasons. In respect of CK Narayankutty, he is due for retirement on 30.06.2012. As regards Shri Alagarsamy, his wife is a mental patient and has been taking psychiatric treatment for the past 11 years at the Elite Mission Hospital, Trichur. Smt.K.S Sainaba is not his junior as alleged by the applicant. In support of their contention they produced the seniority list in the grade of Helper Grade I, wherein Smt K.S Sainaba is shown as one place senior to him. Seniority list dated 01.01.2011 at Annexure R-2 refers.

5. The applicant has filed a rejoinder and produced Annexure A-2 seniority list. According to the applicant, his date of initial appointment is 26.9.2001, whereas that of K.S Sainaba is 11.04.2002 and both of them were promoted to the present grade on the same date. Therefore, the applicant is senior to K.S Sainaba. In Annexure A-2 list his name is at Serial No.81 while her name is at 80. According to the applicant it is only a clerical error. The applicant avers that one Shri K.A Mohammed has sought voluntary retirement which stands approved. Moreover, Shri C.K Narayanankutty is due for retirement on 30.06.2012. Therefore, he requests for consideration of his retention at Thrissur against one of the vacancies arising in the immediate future.

6. Respondents filed additional reply statement and submitted that K.S Sainaba is shown as his senior in the provisional seniority list published on 31.08.2006. The applicant figures at Serial No.15 whereas Smt.K.S Sainaba is at serial No.14 (Annexure R-1). They submitted that the same position is shown in the Annexure R-1 seniority list published on 1.1.2011.

7. Heard the counsels for the parties and perused the documents.

8. The undisputed fact is that the transfer of the applicant was to reduce surplusage in the electrical section at Thrissur. According to the applicant two vacancies are due to arise on account of the superannuation of Shri CK Narayanankutty and voluntary retirement of Shri K.A Muhammed. The fact remains that the applicant sought a request transfer to his native place at Nenmara and joined at Thrissur in the year 2007. Therefore, the respondents can consider his case for retention at Thrissur if the vacancies which are to arise in the near future are required to be filled up. Hence it will be in the interest of justice to direct the applicant to submit his representation to the third respondent for his transfer from Ernakulam to Thrissur.

9. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant is directed to make a detailed representation to the third respondent and the third respondent is directed to consider the representation of the applicant, take an appropriate decision and intimate the same to the applicant within six weeks from the date of receipt of the applicant's representation. The interim order will be in force till his representation is disposed of. The Original application is disposed of as above. No costs.