The Union of India (UOI) vs Sasikala Sarkkunam and The Chairman, Central Administrative Tribunal

M. Chiockalingam, J.—This writ petition challenges the order of the Administrative Tribunal passed in O.A. No. 837 of 2008, whereby the order of transfer passed by the writ Petitioners-department was set aside and a direction was given to the writ Petitioners/Respondents therein to reconsider the decision to transfer the first Respondent herein from Chennai to Mumbai and give a posting order in and around Chennai within the geographical distance prescribed in the guidelines.

The Court heard the Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners.

It is not in controversy that the first Respondent herein, who was the Applicant before the Tribunal, was a Upper Division Clerk. While she was in service, she was given with an order of transfer by the Petitioners on 25.7.2008, posting her to Mumbai. Aggrieved over the same, she made an application before the Tribunal, where she ventilated her grievance. An opportunity was given to the writ Petitioners-department. After doing so, the order of transfer was set aside and the aforesaid direction was given to the department. Hence, this writ petition has been filed by the department.

Admittedly, the first Respondent is working as Upper Division Clerk in the Madras region. It is also admitted that her husband is also employed in Madras. Insofar as female employees are concerned, the policy of transfer is actually governed by Para 59 of the guidelines which reads as follows:

Female employees will not be posted to long distance stations/complexes to the extent possible. The criteria for long distance will be de-cided by C Es command depending upon geographical spread of the command concerned. Where both the husband and wife are central Government employees, the present policy to keep both at the same stations/complexes as far as possible, will be maintained. However, organizational interest will take precedence over any other factor.

In the instant case, while admittedly she is employed in Madras department, no reason is brought to the notice of the Court for making her transfer to the place in Mumbai. Apart from that, it is also made clear that her husband is also employed in Health department in Chennai. No reason is noticed to transfer the first Respondent to such a long distance place which is contrary to rub. So long as there is no compelling reason to transfer her to Mumbai, the Court is unable to accept the case of the Petitioners. It is true, the organizational interest must be given priority over any other factor. In the instant case, no such factor is brought to the notice of the Court.

Under such circumstances, the order of the Tribunal is found to be a reasoned one where a direction is given to the Petitioners to reconsider the decision to transfer the first Respondent herein from Chennai to Mumbai and give a posting order in and around Chennai within the geographical distance prescribed in the guidelines. There is no merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. Consequently, the connected M.P. is also dismissed. No costs.