गाइड लाइन के खिलाफ हुआ तबादला अवैध नहीं।
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No. - 37
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 11089 of 2015
Petitioner :- Union Of India And 3 Others
Respondent :- C.A.T. Alld. Bench Allahabad And Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- Arnab Banerji
Counsel for Respondent :- S.C.,J.K. Mishra
Hon'ble Tarun Agarwala,J.
Hon'ble Prabhat Chandra Tripathi,J.
We have heard Sri Arnab Banerji, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.K.Singh, Advocate, holding brief of Sri J.K.Mishra, the learned counsel for the respondents.
The respondent is a railway employee and was posted for 17 long years at Fatehgarh. The petitioner transferred respondent No.2 to Mathura. The said respondent, being aggrieved, filed an original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which was allowed on the first date of hearing and the transfer order was quashed on the ground that it was violative of the policy dated 30.9.2009. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said order, has filed the present writ petition in which an interim order was passed staying the operation of the Tribunal. As a result of the interim order the said respondent joined the place of transfer at Mathura and is still working there.
The bone of contention is, that the respondent's wife is a State Government employee and under the policy of the petitioner, dated 30.9.2009, husband and wife should be posted in the same station. Based on this clause (vii) of the policy dated 30.9.2009, the Tribunal quashed the order. For facility, the said clause is extracted hereunder:-
"(vii) Where one spouse is employed under the Central Govt. and the other spouse is employed under the State Govt.:-
The spouse employed under the Central Govt. may apply to the competent authority and the competent authority may post the said officer to the station or if there is no post in that station to the State where the other spouse is posted."
The aforesaid clause clearly indicates that the spouse who is employed in the Central Government may apply to the competent authority for his/her posting at the same station where the spouse is posted.
In the instant case the said respondent is a Central Government employee. The wife is posted at Fatehgarh. The said respondent was also posted at Fatehgarh, but was transferred to Mathura. The said respondent could apply for re-transfer back to Fatehgarh under Clause (vii) of the policy dated 30.9.2009. The Court is of the opinion that merely because the said respondent was transferred from Fatehgarh to Mathura in a routine course, does not mean that the said transfer is illegal and in violation of the policy. The Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others vs. S.L.Abbas, AIR 1993 SC 2444 has held that the guidelines issued by the Government with regard to transfer of the employee does not create an enforceable right unless the transfer is malafide.
In State of U.P. and others vs. Gobardhan Lal, AIR 2004 (SC) 2165, the Supreme Court held that the transfer order could not be interfered even if it was violative of the guidelines.
In the light of the aforesaid, we are of the opinion, that the Tribunal committed a manifest
error in allowing the claim application on the first date of hearing without calling for a counter affidavit.
The impugned order cannot be sustained and is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. No useful purpose would be served in remitting the matter to the Tribunal concerned.
We are of the opinion that more than 2 years have elapsed since the date of the transfer of the respondents from Fatehgarh to Mathura. It will be open to the said respondent to apply for re-transfer back to the place where his spouse is posted. If such an application is filed, the authority will consider and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 18.5.2016
(Prabhat Chandra Tripathi,J.)