Allahabad High Court
Abhijat Srivastava vs The Central Administrative ... on 30 July, 2021
Bench: Ritu Raj Awasthi, Dinesh Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 1
Case :- SERVICE BENCH No. - 16363 of 2021
Petitioner :- Abhijat Srivastava
Respondent :- The Central Administrative Tribunal,Lko. Thru.Chairman & Ors
Counsel for Petitioner :- Prem Shankar,Yogi Sharma
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.
Hon'ble Ritu Raj Awasthi,J.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.
1. Heard Mr. P.S. Bajpai, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. S.B. Pandey, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.Varun Pandey, appearing for opposite party nos.2 to 7.
2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 24.6.2021 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal'), whereby the original application preferred by the petitioner against the transfer order dated 30.9.2020 has been dismissed on merit.
3. Mr. P.S. Bajpai, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order impugned is patently wrong and illegal as the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate that as per the Office Memorandum dated 30.9.2009, husband and wife in case working in the Central Government, shall mandatorily be posted at one place. He insists that the Office Memorandum dated 30.9.2009 clearly provides that husband and wife shall be posted at one place and in case there is no post available, then the spouse shall be posted in the adjoining district.
4. It is submitted that the petitioner is General Secretary of its association, as such as per the Office Memorandum dated 8.4.1969, he shall be retained at the Headquarter i.e. Lucknow and cannot be transferred to Shahjahanpur. It is also submitted that this aspect of the matter has also not been considered by the learned Tribunal while deciding the original application preferred by the petitioner.
5. Mr. S.B. Pandey, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for opposite party nos.2 to 7, on the other hand, has submitted that the Office Memorandum dated 30.9.2009 does not say that it is mandatorily provides that husband and wife shall be posted at one place. Submission is that the said Office Memorandum is advisory in nature and the petitioner cannot insist for the enforcement of the same through a direction from the Court particularly when the petitioner had been transferred in an annual chain and on the ground that he has served the required period of posting at Lucknow. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal has considered all the submissions made by the petitioner, including the medical ground, working of spouse and being the office bearer of its association and, has returned the findings on each and every issue, as such it does not call for any interference.
6. We have considered the submissions and gone through the record.
7. So far the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Office Memorandum dated 30.9.2009 is mandatory in nature and the husband and wife shall be posted at one place is concerned, suffice it to note that perusal of the same clearly indicates that it is advisory in nature and cannot be said to be mandatory.
Learned Tribunal in paragraphs 17, 18 and 19 of the impugned judgement has considered the import of that Office Memorandum and has rightly come to the conclusion that the said Office Memorandum is not mandatory in nature.
8. So far the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is an office bearer of its association and as such he cannot be transferred from the Headquarter is concerned, we have to take into consideration the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal in paragraph 18 of the impugned judgement, wherein it has been clearly held that the petitioner is an office bearer of regional unit of the national body. Perusal of the Office Memorandum dated 8.4.1969 clearly appears to indicate that its provisions for retention at Headquarters apply only to one Chief Executive of Unions/Associations etc or in the absence of a clearly defined Chief Executive, the General Secretary functioning as Chief Executive. The petitioner being the General Secretary of the regional unit of the national body, cannot claim the benefit of the said Office Memorandum.
9. We do not find any infirmity or illegality in the findings recorded in this regard by the learned Tribunal.
10. So far the other contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner with respect to medical ground etc. are concerned, the same have been dealt with in detail by the learned Tribunal, where a finding has been written that the petitioner may join at his transferred place and continue to take the medicines etc. as prescribed to him.
11. In view of above, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgement passed by the learned Tribunal.
12. Writ petition being devoid of merit, is dismissed.
.
(Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.) (Ritu Raj Awasthi, J.)
Order Date :- 30.7.2021
Rao/-
