Orissa High Court
WP(C)/4220/2021 on 5 February, 2021
W.P.(C) No.4220 of 2021
03. 05.02.2021 1. This matter is taken up by video conferencing mode.
2. Heard Mr. Prafulla Kumar Rath, learned counsel for
the Petitioner and Mr. P.K. Parhi, learned Assistant
Solicitor General for the Union of India.
3. This is the third round of litigation by the present
Petitioner seeking to resist his transfer from
Bhubaneswar, where admittedly he has been working
for last seventeen years out of total twenty three years
of his service.
4. The fact that the Petitioner is presently working as
Assistant Communication Officer (ACO) in Inter State
Police Wireless Station (MHA) Unit No.VIII under the
Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. By
order dated 24th July, 2018 of the Station
Superintendent, he was transferred to Ranchi.
5. Aggrieved by that order, the Petitioner first
approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT),
Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No. 260/00858/2018,
which came to be disposed by the Tribunal on 21st
December, 2018 stating that the detailed representation
will be given, which will be considered by the
competent authority and that till then the Petitioner will
not be relieved, if he has not been relieved by that time.
The Petitioner somehow continued as such and a fresh
order was passed on 20th February, 2019 citing all the
reasons adduced by the Petitioner, but reiterating the
necessity for transferring him.
6. Aggrieved by the rejection of second representation
vide order dated 20th February, 2019, the Petitioner
again approached the CAT in the second round by
filing O.A. No. 260/00159/2019. By the order dated
29th July, 2019, the application was again allowed with
the finding that the Opposite Parties have somehow
given a go-bye to the guidelines issued by the DOP&T
OM dated 30th September, 2009 and that consideration
of the Petitioner's case was not in conformity with the
judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India v.
S.L.Abbas, AIR 1993 SC 2444. Therefore, again the
matter was remanded to the Opposite Parties leaving it
open to pass fresh order of transfer in accordance with
DOP&T guideline.
7. Aggrieved by the said order, Union of India filed
W.P.(C) No. 3802 of 2020 in this Court. By order dated
13th March, 2020 the said W.P.(C) No. 3802 of 2020
was dismissed as not pressed.
8. Pursuant to the CAT's direction, the matter was once
again considered by the Opposite Parties and they have
passed another transfer order, by which, along with
other routine transfers, the Petitioner was also
transferred.
9. This was challenged for the third time by the
Petitioner by filing O.A. No. 280 of 2020 before the
CAT, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack. The CAT has by the
impugned order has dismissed the application, inter
alia, observing as under:
"It is submitted by applicant's counsel that
DOPT OM allows him to be retained at
Bhubaneswar on spouse ground. But the
department is not bound to accept the said
ground because the guidelines issued by DOPT
vide OM dated 30.09.2009 which speaks about
posting of husband and wife at the same station
is not mandatory and does not confer any legal
right on the employee to continue at the station
of his choice for indefinite period. Therefore,
since the applicant has continued at
Bhubaneswar for 17 years out of his 23 years of
service career and since there is no malafide
proved in this case, the present OA does not
call for any interference. Citations relied upon
by the learned counsel for the applicant are not
applicable to the facts and circumstances of the
present case."
10. This Court has heard in detail the submissions of
Mr. P. K. Rath, learned counsel for the Petitioner. The
Court is not persuaded to interfere with the impugned
order of the CAT. The facts speak for themselves. It is
not possible to agree with Mr. Rath that in these several
rounds of litigation the Opposite Parties have not
viewed the issue in light of the DOPT OMs dated 20th
September, 2009 and 26th October, 2015. This Court is
not persuaded to accept the plea for another
consideration of the Petitioner's case in the light of the
DOPT guidelines.
11. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
12. As the restrictions due to the COVID-19 situation
are continuing, learned counsel for the parties may
utilize a soft copy of this order available in the High
Court's website or print out thereof at par with certified
copy in the manner prescribed, vide Court's Notice
No.4587, dated 25th March, 2020.
(Dr. S. Muralidhar)
Chief Justice
( S. K. Sahoo)
Judge
P.K.Sahoo/
R.K.Mishra
