AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rajnish Kumar Rai, Member (J)
Mr. Udai Chandrani, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Chakrapani Vatsyayan, learned counsel for the respondents are present and heard.
The present Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking following relief(s):-
“A) To set aside the order dated 24.12.2024 passed by respondent no.3 and issued by respondent no.4.
B) To set aside the order dated 02.01.2025 passed by respondent no.3.
C) To issue an order or direction may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
D) To award the cost to the applicant..”
The brief facts of the case are that the applicant was transferred to the hard station of Lansdown, where he served until 31.05.2017, after which he was transferred to Allahabad. The applicant is the primary caregiver for his 80-year-old father, who recently underwent bypass surgery, and for his daughter, who is undergoing treatment for Tuberculosis at Hari Daya Super Specialty Center. On 27.12.2024, the applicant submitted a representation to Respondent No. 3 to consider his situation, but no response has been received.
Learned counsel for the applicant has relied on paragraph 8, sub-clause (i) of the Transfer Policy issued by the respondent department on 28.03.2014. The relevant parts of the aforesaid transfer policy is quoted as follows:
8(i) In case where an employee or a member of his family is suffering from, serious ailments such as Cancer, polio, blindness, mental/psychiatric disorder, paralysis etc or is differently-abled; PCsDA/CsDA may at their discretion grant exemption from transfers for a specific/limited period provided the disease is certified by the authorized specialists and supported by medical documents/papers. The case will be reviewed before the period of exemption is over.”
Learned counsel further submits that, on account of the transfer, the applicant has moved a representation dated 27.12.2024 before the respondent authority raising his grievance, which has not yet been decided.
Accordingly, learned counsel for the applicant submits that he will be satisfied if an order is passed directing the respondents to consider the pending representation of the applicant.
On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents submits that he has no objection if such direction is issued to decide the representation of the applicant as per rules.
Considering the facts of the case and the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion to dispose of this Original Application, at the admission stage itself with a direction to the respondents to decide the pending representation of the applicant dated 27.12.2024, considering the observations made above and in accordance with the extant rules. The respondents are directed to pass a reasoned and speaking order within three months from the date of receiving the certified copy of this order. In case the applicant is not relieved, he shall not be disturbed from his current place of posting till a decision is taken on the representation. The order passed on the aforesaid representation shall be communicated to the applicant forthwith.
It is made clear that I have not entered into the delay, laches and merit of the claim of the applicant. All points are open for consideration by the respondents.
Accordingly, O.A. is disposed of. No costs.