Ashumendra Kushwaha & Others vs Union Of India & Others

Tarun Shridhar, Member (A)

We have joined this Division Bench online through video conferencing.

Shri M.K. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicants and Shri K.K. Ojha, learned counsel for the respondents are present.

The applicants are aggrieved by their transfer which according to the learned counsel for the applicant is putting them to severe hardship in managing their domestic and social affairs. Learned counsel submits that all the applicants were posted in their present place of posting on compassionate grounds as all of them had peculiar family circumstances which required them to be stationed in Kanpur, and their transfer at this juncture would go against the spirit of compassion which guided their posting at Kanpur. Learned counsel therefore prays to set aside the order of transfer so that the applicants can stay at Kanpur and besides discharging their official duties also attend to their family and domestic affairs.

Learned counsel for the respondents contests the averments made by learned counsel for the applicant and submits that applicants have not actually been transferred but on account of closure of the entire defence unit, the staff of the unit has been relocated. Therefore, it is an administrative development leading to transfer and it is not confined to the applicants only. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that this being a policy decision of the Government to close the unit at Kanpur, this Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to interfere in the same. He further submits that the applicants along with other employees have been relocated in accordance with the scheme for such relocation made by the respondents. Accordingly, learned counsel for the respondents submits that this OA is not maintainable.

However, learned counsel for the applicant submits that pursuant to the relocation of the employees the respondents have adjusted some of the employees, by considering their domestic circumstances, at appropriate places. He submits that the applicants have also preferred their representations before the competent authority for consideration. These representations are placed at page 169 to 177 of the original application. He submits that the applicants would be satisfied at this stage if the competent authority is directed to decide the representation of the applicants in accordance with rules and the relevant policy in a time bound manner. He further prays that the impugned transfer order may not be given effect to till the decision of their representation.

Accordingly, in view of the limited prayer at this point of time, the present original application is disposed of with a direction to the competent authority amongst the respondents to decide the pending representation of the applicants with a period of three weeks from the date of this order. The applicants are afforded a liberty of one week to prefer a supplementary representation within a week, if they so desire. It is further directed that the impugned transfer order may not be given effect to till the competent authority has taken a well considered decision in accordance with rules upon the representation of the applicants.

Needless to say that we have not commented or expressed an opinion on the merits of the case.

With the aforesaid directions, the OA is disposed of. No order as to costs.