Back
2009 Supreme(All) 656
[2009(3) ADJ 743 (DB)]
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : R.K. AGRAWAL AND S.P. MEHROTRA, JJ.
DWIJENDRA NATH ROY ....Petitioner
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS .....Respondents
(Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 10874 of 2009, decided on 26th February, 2009)
Counsel :
Ashok Khare, Chandra Shekhar Srivastava and Sudhanshu Srivastava for the Petitioner; Triloki Singh and Addl. Solicitor General of India for the Respondents.
Headnote:Transfer—Order of—Challenged—When petitioner was transferred from Ghaziabad to Channai—A writ petition was also filed by him for promotion—He was granted promotion to the post of Scientist S.D.—Hence, petition against—Court held that writ petitions were not maintainable, on ground that petitioner should first approach C.A.T. before approaching High Court under Articles 226/227 of Constitution—Thereafter, petitioner filed O.A. before C.A.T., challenging said order of transfer—Also, filed another O.A. for promotion—Resulting in dismissal of O.A. against order of transfer and O.A. for promotion, was still pending before C.A.T.—Hence, petition against—Held, C.A.T. has given cogent and valid reasons for dismissing aforesaid O.A. against transfer order—And, petitioner was transferred to Chennai in public interest—As regards grievance of petitioner that his transfer to Chennai, would create hardship to him, as he would not be able to pursue his O.A. for his promotion at C.A.T. in Ghaziabad, Court held that petitioner may move an application before that C.A.T. for transfer of said O.A. for promotion from Allahabad Bench to Chennai Bench of C.A.T.—Court held that if any such application was made by petitioner, C.A.T. to decide sympathetically—And, also grievance of petitioner for enquiry proceedings at Shahibabad, petitioner may make a representation to Director General, National Test House, seeking transfer of enquiry proceedings from Shahibabad to Chennai. [Paras 15, 16, 17 to 21]
By the Court.—The present Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 22nd January, 2009 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal dismissing the Original Application, namely, Original Application No. 1217 of 2007 filed by the petitioner.
2. It appears that the petitioner at present is holding the post of Scientist SD in National Test House.
3. The petitioner had earlier filed a Writ Petition being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 23125 of 2004 before this Court in regard to controversy regarding his promotion to the post of Scientist S.D. During the pendency of the said Writ Petition, the petitioner was granted promotion to the post of Scientist SD on 26.10.2005 with effect from the date of actually assuming charge, and not from the actual date of eligibility.
4. Further, while the said Writ Petition was pending, the petitioner was transferred from Ghaziabad to Chennai by the order dated 20.2.2006 passed by the Director General, National Test House, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure No. 2 to the Writ Petition.
5. The aforesaid transfer order dated 20.2.2006 was challenged by the petitioner by filing another Writ Petition, namely, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12586 of 2006 before this Court.
6. The aforesaid two Writ Petitions were decided by this Court by its judgment and order dated 8.10.2007, inter alia, holding that the Writ Petitions were not maintainable on the ground that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in L.Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and others, 1997 SCC (L & S) 577, the petitioner should first approach the Central Administrative Tribunal under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 before approaching this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.
7. It further appears that the petitioner, thereafter, filed an Original Application, being Original Application No. 1217 of 2007 before the Central Administrative Tribunal challenging the said order of transfer dated 20.2.2006. The petitioner also filed another Original Application, being Original Application No. 30 of 2007 in regard to promotion matter.
8. By the impugned order dated 22.1.2009, the Central Administrative Tribunal has dismissed the aforesaid Original Application No. 1217 of 2007 filed against the transfer order dated 20.2.2006. The other Original Application, namely, Original Application No. 30 of 2007 in regard to promotion matter of the petitioner is stated to be still pending before the Central Administrative Tribunal.
9. Against the said order dated 22.1.2009 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking reliefs, as mentioned above.
10. We have heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Sudhanshu Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Triloki Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1, and have perused the record.
11. It is submitted by Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel that the transfer order dated 20.2.2006 remained stayed during the pendency of the Writ Petition before this Court and also during the pendency of the aforesaid Original Application No. 1217 of 2007 before the Central Administrative Tribunal. It is further submitted by Sri Khare that the said transfer order dated 20.2.2006 has been passed in colourable exercise of power in order to create hurdle in the way of the petitioner in pursuing Original Application No. 30 of 2007 regarding his promotion matter before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad.
12. It is further submitted by Sri Khare that recital in the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal that the petitioner was relieved after dismissal of the Writ Petitions by this Court, and the petitioner has joined at Chennai and is working there, is not correct in view of the Office Order dated 9.2.2009, a copy whereof has been fi
