The Union Of India vs Shri B.Raja Ambedkar
2022 Latest Caselaw 4996 AP

        HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI

  MAIN CASE No.W.P.No.17535 of 2022

                             PROCEEDING SHEET

Sl     DATE                                                                              Office
No.                                                                                      Note
      03.08.2022   AVSS,J & GRKP,J                                                     uploaded

                           Heard Sri T.Surya Karan Reddy, learned
                   Additional Solicitor General of India, representing
                   Sri     N.Harinath,        learned     Assistant       Solicitor
                   General      of    India,     for    the     petitioner,      and
                   Sri K.Sudhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the
                   applicant-respondent herein.

The order, dated 31.03.2022, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench (hereinafter called 'the Tribunal') in O.A.No.822 of 2021, is under challenge in the present Writ Petition.

Applicant-respondent herein was promoted as the Assistant Commissioner on ad hoc basis along with others vide office order No.156/2020, dated 24.12.2020. Vide office order No.59/2021, dated 04.06.2021, the Union of India, on promotion, posted the applicant-respondent herein to Ranchi of Jharkhand State. On 14.06.2021, respondent herein submitted a representation to the authorities with a request to accommodate him by posting at Visakhapatnam Zone or at any one of the Zones of Bangalore, Bhubaneswar or Chennai where, according to the respondent, vacancies are available.

Respondent herein was relieved by the Additional Commissioner vide proceedings C.No.II/09/05/2020-Estt., dated 23.07.2021. Thereafter, respondent herein filed O.A.No.567 of 2021, assailing the order, dated 04.06.2021, whereunder and whereby, respondent was posted at Ranchi. The Tribunal vide order, dated

W.P.No.17535 of 2022

03.09.2021, disposed of the said Original Application, directing the authorities to reconsider their decision with regard to the place of posting of the applicant with a further direction to the authorities to consider placing the representation of the respondent before the High Level Authority of the Board for consideration. In the said order, the Tribunal also observed that the authorities may consider posting him in neighbouring State, as desired by him, if possible. The Tribunal also observed that, in the event of there being any impossibility, a speaking order should be passed, while fixing four weeks time for doing so and directing status quo to be maintained till the conclusion of the said exercise.

Pursuant to the aforesaid orders, the Union of India vide proceedings in F.No.C- 18011/04/2021-Ad.II, dated 09.11.2021, turned down the request of the applicant-respondent herein, on the ground that the reasons assigned by the respondent would not merit feasible consideration. It is not in dispute that, after the said order, applicant-respondent herein did not join in service at Ranchi and applied for leave. Vide order, dated 18.11.2021, the Union of India directed the leave application of the respondent herein to be considered, while indicating that the respondent should join at Ranchi and also indicated suitable disciplinary action in the event of not adhering to the same.

On 30.11.2021, once again the respondent approached the Tribunal, by way of filing O.A.No.822 of 2021, questioning the validity of not only the earlier order, dated 04.06.2021, posting him at Ranchi, but also the order, dated 09.11.2021, referred to supra. The Tribunal, on 10.03.2022, passed an order in the aforesaid

W.P.No.17535 of 2022

O.A.No.822 of 2021 and the same reads as follows:

" Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. Smt.K.Rajitha, learned counsel for the respondents requests for two weeks adjournment. This Tribunal has already dealt this issue in O.A.No.565 of 2021 and made certain observations on 03.9.2021 which are re-produced hereinbelow.

"Keeping in view the facts and circumstances and transfer policy laid down by the respondents themselves, the respondents shall re-consider their decision with regard to the place of posting of the applicant and shall consider placing his representation before the highest level authority of the Board for consideration. They may consider posting him in neighbouring State, as desired by him, if possible. If it is not possible, they shall pass a speaking order thereto. The above exercise shall be completed within a period of four weeks. Till then, status quo obtaining as on date shall be maintained".

3. The crux of our order is why the applicant should not be considered for posting to nearby stations. The impugned order is silent on this aspect. Rather the respondents are drawing our attention to certain judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as if we are unaware of those judgments. This is not appreciated.

4. Respondents are granted two weeks time to file their stand once again. If possible, they may pass a fresh order. Otherwise, this Tribunal

W.P.No.17535 of 2022

will proceed in accordance with law.

5. List the matter on 31.03.2022".

Thereafter, on 25.03.2022, vide proceedings in F.No.C-18011/04/2021-Ad.II, dated 25.03.2022, the Union of India rejected the request of the petitioner.

On 31.03.2022, the Tribunal passed an order in O.A.No.822 of 2021, directing the authorities to place on record the entire transfer list with the details of length of service etc., and also directed to file a detailed affidavit within a period of three weeks. In the above background, challenging the validity and the legal sustainability of the said order, the present Writ Petition came to be filed.

According to the learned Additional Solicitor General, Sri T.Surya Karan Reddy, the order passed by the Tribunal, which is impugned in the present Writ Petition, directing the Board to place on record the entire transfer list with details of length of service, is highly erroneous, contrary to law and opposed to the basic principles of service prudence. It is also the submission of the learned Additional Solicitor General of India that, in the absence of any mala fides and violation of any statutory provision, the Original Application, filed by the respondent herein, is not maintainable.

On the contrary, Sri K.Sudhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the applicant-respondent herein, submits that, though the respondent herein, in his representation, dated 14.06.2021, brought to the notice of the authorities with regard to the serious difficulties which the applicant is facing, the authorities did not consider the same and passed the impugned orders. In the order, dated 09.11.2021, which is impugned in O.A.No.822 of 2021, the contents of

W.P.No.17535 of 2022

the representation submitted by the respondent herein were extracted and the same reads as follows:

i) That his daughter had got a rank in NEET 2020-2021 and was waiting for admission into Ayurveda or Naturopathy courses equal to MBBS. He had submitted his options on 13.01.2021 keeping the above fact in mind.

ii) That due to second wave of COVID-19 pandemic the posting orders have been delayed and his daughter got admitted in Naturopathy College in Hyderabad. He further submitted that his two elder children are also studying in Hyderabad.

iii) That in the second wave of COVID-19 in April he lost his Father and his two elder sisters-in-law (wives of his elder brothers) in his family. He stated about the ill-health of his elderly brothers and their post COVID sufferings. He submitted that due to post COVID-19 complications his brothers and their families need his support.

iv) He submitted about his financial sufferings and that his family cannot be shifted with him. He also stated that he had suffered from mild heart ailment 5 years back.

v) That, he would have opted for a zone or nearby zone to his present working area, if the Board had called for a fresh representation before finalization of the posting orders.

vi) That he may be posted at Visakhapatnam Zone or nearby Zones of Bangalore, Bhubaneswar or Chennai as there are vacancies left in these Zones".

Even in the order, dated 25.03.2022, the Under Secretary to the Government of India also

W.P.No.17535 of 2022

categorically stated that no representation shall be entertained till the Officer joins in the place of posting and that the representation of the first respondent-applicant cannot be considered at this stage when he has not even joined in the place of posting. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that, having regard to the difficulties expressed by the respondent, he may be accommodated in any one of the Zones of Bangalore, Bhubanesvar or Chennai.

Having regard to the above submissions and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the present case, the following order is passed:

"Applicant-respondent herein shall join at Ranchi, within a period of two weeks from today, and, within a period of one week thereafter, he is entitled to make a representation to the authorities for posting him in the Zones of Bangalore, Bhubanesvar or Chennai and the same shall be considered by the authorities keeping in view the difficulties expressed by the respondent- applicant in his representation, dated 14.06.2021, and pass appropriate orders, within a period of three weeks thereafter". Post after six weeks.

________ AVSS,J

________ GRKP,J Note:

Furnish C.C. of the order within two days.

B/o Tsy

W.P.No.17535 of 2022