B. Mohan Rao Vs. the Union of India, Rep. by Its Secretary, Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi and Others - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/939270
CourtCentral Administrative Tribunal CAT Hyderabad
Decided OnJun-16-2009
Case NumberOriginal Application No. 494 of 2009
JudgeTHE HONOURABLE MRS. BHARATI RAY MEMBER (JUDL.) & THE HONOURABLE MR. HRIDAY NARAIN MEMBER (ADMN.)
AppellantB. Mohan Rao
RespondentThe Union of India, Rep. by Its Secretary, Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi and Others
Advocates:For the Applicant: Dr. P.B. Vijaya Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents: G. Jaya Prakash Babu, Sr. CGSC.
Excerpt:
(per hon'ble mrs. bharati ray, member (judl.)) 1. heard dr. p.b. vijaya kumar, learned counsel for applicant and mr. g. jaya prakash babu, learned senior central government standing counsel for the respondents. 2. the applicant is working in the respondents organization at hyderabad as asst. labour commissioner (central) since june 2005 and he will be completing his present tenure at hyderabad by june 2009 and therefore, he submitted a representation dated 30.12.2008 to the joint secretary and cadre controlling authority, cls-i section, ministry of labour and employment, new delhi, copy of which is enclosed to the o.a. at page 7 as annexure i, requesting for his retention and continuation in the present posting at hyderabad for the remaining period of his service on the following grounds: “1. that i have a little over one year of govt. service left for retirement on attaining the age of superannuation in august, 2010. 2. that my eldest daughter is pursuing her pg degree in medicine in a govt. medical college at hyderabad for whom i have to search out for a suitable alliance in marriage. 3. that my other two children are pursuing their studies in a jr. college at hyderabad with state syllabus.” however, he has not been favourd with any reply to the said representation and the respondents have issued the impugned office order no. 10 of 2009 dated 11.06.2009 whereby the applicant has been transferred from alc(c) hyderabad to alwc (c) od avadi, copy of which is enclosed at page 13 of the o.a. the name of the applicant is at sl. no. 11 of the said order. 3. being aggrieved by the above order, the applicant has approached this tribunal seeking for a declaration that the impugned office order no. 10 of 2009 dated 11.06.2009 issued by the 1st respondent in ordering transfer of the applicant from alc (c) hyderabad to alwc (c) od, avadi, tamilnadu as illegal, arbitrary, void, bad in law, capricious, discriminatory and violative of article 14 of the constitution of india and contrary to principles of natural justice; and for a consequential direction to the respondents to continue him in the post of assistant labour commissioner (c), hyderabad till his retirement from service i.e august 2010. 4. learned counsel for the applicant has drawn our attention to the guidelines enclosed at page 10 of the o.a. to show that as per the guidelines, officers due for retirement within one year are not to be disturbed and the officers who have completed 4 years in a post or 8 years at the same station are considered for transfer. it is the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that as per the above guidelines, an officer can be continued in the same station for a maximum period of 8 years. therefore, he contends that since one year 2 months of service is left for the retirement of the applicant, no administrative purpose shall be served if he is transferred from the present posting and therefore, the transfer order cannot be said to have been issued on administrative interests and the applicant can be continued in the same station i.e. hyderabad for his remaining period of service in terms of the guidelines mentioned supra. 5. on the other hand, learned senior central government standing counsel for the respondents contended that since admittedly the applicant has one year 2 months service left to retire, he does not fulfill the guideline i.e. one year left to retire. he further submitted that there are no malafides in the impugned transfer order and therefore, this tribunal cannot interfere with such transfer order. it is also his submission that the applicant has not submitted any representation after the impugned transfer order is issued. however, we find that the applicant submitted a representation on 30.12.2008. learned counsel has no instructions whether the respondents have considered the said representation in view of the guidelines mentioned above. 6. in terms of the above transfer policy, an officer can be accommodated in the same station for a maximum period of 8 years and considering that the applicant has one year 2 months service to retire, we are of the considered view that this application can be disposed of, at the admission stage itself, with a direction to the respondents to consider the representation submitted by the applicant on 30.12.2008, copy of which is enclosed at page 7 of the o.a., in view of the guidelines mentioned above and take appropriate decision and pass orders accordingly. while doing so, the respondents shall also consider whether at all any administrative purpose will be served by transferring the applicant to another place at this stage, who is admittedly having 1 years 2 months service to retire. 7. we, therefore, dispose of the application, at the admission stage itself, giving liberty to the applicant to make a fresh representation within two weeks from today, if he is so advised, and by directing the respondents to consider the representation submitted by the applicant on 30.12.2008 together with the fresh representation that may be submitted by the applicant, in view of the guidelines mentioned above and the observations made supra, and pass appropriate order and communicate the same to the applicant within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the fresh representation from the applicant. till then, status quo as on today in respect of the applicant shall be maintained. it is made clear that if no fresh representation is received by the respondents from the applicant within two weeks from today, the respondents shall not entertain any such fresh representation and shall only consider the representation already submitted by the applicant on 30.12.2008. 8. in the above circumstances, parties shall bear their respective costs.
Judgment:

(Per Hon'ble Mrs. Bharati Ray, Member (Judl.))

1. Heard Dr. P.B. Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel for applicant and Mr. G. Jaya Prakash Babu, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. The applicant is working in the respondents organization at Hyderabad as Asst. Labour Commissioner (Central) since June 2005 and he will be completing his present tenure at Hyderabad by June 2009 and therefore, he submitted a representation dated 30.12.2008 to the Joint Secretary and Cadre Controlling Authority, CLS-I Section, Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi, copy of which is enclosed to the O.A. at page 7 as Annexure I, requesting for his retention and continuation in the present posting at Hyderabad for the remaining period of his service on the following grounds:

“1. That I have a little over one year of Govt. service left for retirement on attaining the age of superannuation in August, 2010.

2. That my eldest daughter is pursuing her PG Degree in medicine in a Govt. Medical College at Hyderabad for whom I have to search out for a suitable alliance in marriage.

3. That my other two children are pursuing their studies in a Jr. College at Hyderabad with State syllabus.”

However, he has not been favourd with any reply to the said representation and the respondents have issued the impugned Office Order No. 10 of 2009 dated 11.06.2009 whereby the applicant has been transferred from ALC(C) Hyderabad to ALWC (C) OD Avadi, copy of which is enclosed at page 13 of the O.A. The name of the applicant is at Sl. No. 11 of the said order.

3. Being aggrieved by the above order, the applicant has approached this Tribunal seeking for a declaration that the impugned Office Order No. 10 of 2009 dated 11.06.2009 issued by the 1st Respondent in ordering transfer of the applicant from ALC (C) Hyderabad to ALWC (C) OD, Avadi, Tamilnadu as illegal, arbitrary, void, bad in law, capricious, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and contrary to principles of natural justice; and for a consequential direction to the respondents to continue him in the post of Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), Hyderabad till his retirement from service i.e August 2010.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn our attention to the guidelines enclosed at page 10 of the O.A. to show that as per the guidelines, officers due for retirement within one year are not to be disturbed and the officers who have completed 4 years in a post or 8 years at the same station are considered for transfer. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that as per the above guidelines, an officer can be continued in the same station for a maximum period of 8 years. Therefore, he contends that since one year 2 months of service is left for the retirement of the applicant, no administrative purpose shall be served if he is transferred from the present posting and therefore, the transfer order cannot be said to have been issued on administrative interests and the applicant can be continued in the same station i.e. Hyderabad for his remaining period of service in terms of the guidelines mentioned supra.

5. On the other hand, learned senior central government standing counsel for the respondents contended that since admittedly the applicant has one year 2 months service left to retire, he does not fulfill the guideline i.e. one year left to retire. He further submitted that there are no malafides in the impugned transfer order and therefore, this Tribunal cannot interfere with such transfer order. It is also his submission that the applicant has not submitted any representation after the impugned transfer order is issued. However, we find that the applicant submitted a representation on 30.12.2008. Learned counsel has no instructions whether the respondents have considered the said representation in view of the guidelines mentioned above.

6. In terms of the above transfer policy, an officer can be accommodated in the same station for a maximum period of 8 years and considering that the applicant has one year 2 months service to retire, we are of the considered view that this application can be disposed of, at the admission stage itself, with a direction to the respondents to consider the representation submitted by the applicant on 30.12.2008, copy of which is enclosed at page 7 of the O.A., in view of the guidelines mentioned above and take appropriate decision and pass orders accordingly. While doing so, the respondents shall also consider whether at all any administrative purpose will be served by transferring the applicant to another place at this stage, who is admittedly having 1 years 2 months service to retire.

7. We, therefore, dispose of the application, at the admission stage itself, giving liberty to the applicant to make a fresh representation within two weeks from today, if he is so advised, and by directing the respondents to consider the representation submitted by the applicant on 30.12.2008 together with the fresh representation that may be submitted by the applicant, in view of the guidelines mentioned above and the observations made supra, and pass appropriate order and communicate the same to the applicant within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the fresh representation from the applicant. Till then, status quo as on today in respect of the applicant shall be maintained. It is made clear that if no fresh representation is received by the respondents from the applicant within two weeks from today, the respondents shall not entertain any such fresh representation and shall only consider the representation already submitted by the applicant on 30.12.2008.

8. In the above circumstances, parties shall bear their respective costs.