Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Rajiv Shakdher, Talwant Singh, JJ.
Kawaljit Kaur - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
W.P.(C) 503 of 2021 & CM No. 1306 of 2021
Decided On : 13-09-2021
Important Points
Subject
Employment Law - Administrative Tribunal Jurisdiction
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Transfer Orders and Judicial Compliance - Transfer orders made under Rotational Transfer Policy must be adhered to or appropriately challenged. (Para 10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was promoted and later transferred under a policy; after filing representations against transfer orders, the Tribunal initially supported her claims, requiring compliance from the respondents regarding representations for her welfare. The respondent's failure to implement Tribunal's orders led to a contempt petition filed by the petitioner.
Findings of Court:
The respondents had ignored several Tribunal orders, causing financial hardship to the petitioner and undermining the authority of the Tribunal.
Issues: The court specifically addressed the failure of respondents to comply with Tribunal orders and the implications of neglecting judicial authority on the petitioner’s employment and salary.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated the obligation of the respondents to comply with Tribunal orders, asserting that neglecting compliance violates the principles of justice and law governing administrative proceedings.
Result: Writ petition allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of petitioner's employment history and grievances. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments regarding the need for transfer relief. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. analysis of compliance and contempt issues. (Para 9) |
| 4. order to implement prior tribunal ruling. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
JUDGMENT
Rajiv Shakdher, J. (ORAL):
[Court hearing convened via video-conferencing on account of COVID-19]
Preface: -
1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 23.11.2020, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (in short 'the Tribunal') in contempt petition (CP) No.195/2020 and Miscellaneous Application (MA) No. 298/2020, which were filed in OA No. 2874/2018.
Background facts: -
2. The backdrop, in which the instant writ petition has been filed, is required to be noticed, in order to adjudicate the same.
2.1. On 22.12.1988, the petitioner was appointed as Junior Scientific Assistant - II (in short ''JSA-II'') in Senior Quality Assurance Establishment (General Stores), New Delhi [in short ''SQAE (GS)''] under the aegis of Directorate General of Quality Assurance (in short "DGQA"), which works under the administrative control of Department of Defence Production, Ministry of Defence, Government of India.
2.2. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Scientific Assistant - II (in short ''SA-II') and was posted to Controllerate Quality Assurance (Textile & Clothing) [in short ''CQA (T&C)''], Kanpur, on 16.10.2002.
2.3. The record shows that, thereafter, the petitioner, on compassionate grounds, was posted to the Directorate of Standardisation, Badarpur, New Delhi on 06.08.2005. It appears that [and qua which there is no dispute], after a tenure of one year and eight months at Badarpur, Delhi, she was side- stepped to SQAE(GS), New Delhi on 23.04.2007.
2.4. Furthermore, the record also shows that, the petitioner was granted in situ promotion which entailed her moving from SA-II to Junior Technical Officer (Scientific) [in short ''JTO(S)''], on 03.12.2012.
2.5. The record shows that, on 19.07.2017, a transfer order was passed by the competent authority under the Rotational Transfer Policy-2017 (in short "RTP-2017"), directing, inter alia, the petitioner to move from Anand Parbat, New Delhi to Kanpur. The petitioner was asked to report to CQA (T & C) in Kanpur.
2.6. Being aggrieved, it appears that, the petitioner made a representation to respondent no.3 qua the transfer order dated 19.07.2017. This representation was made on 14.08.2017. The ground given was, that, her mother was not well and, therefore, her presence was required in Delhi.
2.7. Although, the petitioner avers that, her representation dated 14.08.2017 was rejected, no such order is placed on record.
2.7.(a). On being queried, Mr. Anil Kumar Mishra, who appears for the petitioner, says that, the petitioner was orally informed that, her representation was rejected.
2.8. A movement order was issued qua the petitioner on 15.11.2017 by respondent no.1. This order relieved the petitioner from her services w.e.f. 30.11.2017, and required the petitioner to report to Kanpur, on or before 11.12.2017.
2.9. Given this position, the petitioner made a second representation to respondent no.3, on 30.11.2017.
3. Since, the petitioner did not receive any response to her representation dated 30.11.2017, she was constrained to move the Tribunal. Accordingly, an original application (OA) was filed with the Tribunal, which was numbered as OA No. 4531/2017. This OA was disposed of by the Tribunal, on 20.12.2017, which, inter alia, required respondent no.3 to pass a reasoned and speaking order qua the petitioner's representation dated 30.11.2017, within 2 months, commencing from the date of the receipt of the order of the Tribunal.
3.1. Once again, there was no movement in the matter, which compelled the petitioner to file a contempt petition qua the order dated 20.12.2017. This contempt petition, we are told, was numbered as CP No.298/2018. According to the petitioner,
