Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 754
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, A
Sant Ram – Appellant
Versus
Defence – Respondent
O.A./2083/2024
Mr. U Srivastava with Mr. M K Gaur, Mr. Subhash Gosain
The court held that the respondents violated their own transfer policy by denying the applicant's choice posting despite available vacancies, constituting arbitrary action.
Headnote:(A) Army Ordnance Corps Records Instructions - Posting on Impending Retirement - The applicant sought to quash the order denying choice posting, citing bias and violation of transfer policy. The court found that the respondents failed to adhere to their own guidelines regarding postings for those nearing retirement. (Paras 1-9)
(B) Transfer Policy - The court emphasized that transfers should not be arbitrary or violate established norms. The respondents' actions were deemed inconsistent with their own policies. (Paras 8)
Facts of the case:
The applicant, a Fireman promoted to Station Officer, requested a transfer due to personal hardships and impending retirement. His requests were denied despite vacancies, while a junior was accommodated.
Findings of Court:
The court quashed the transfer order favoring the junior and directed the applicant's posting to his choice station or another suitable location.
Issues: The main issues included the denial of choice posting and adherence to transfer policies.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the respondents violated their own transfer guidelines, warranting the quashing of the transfer order.
Result: The OA is allowed.
ORDER
By way of the present O.A., the applicant seeks the following relief:
a) Directing the respondents to place the relevant records pertaining to the present O.A. before their Lordships for the proper adjudication in the matter in the interest of justice.
b) Quash and setting aside the impugned orders dt. 07.05.24 {Annexure A/1 (colly)} declining the request for choice posting on the grounds of non-availability of vacancy at the same time adjusting the junior of the applicant, at amongst one of the choices stations after declaring the same is as deliberate, biased, perverse, illegal, unjust, arbitrary, malafide, unconstitutional, against the principles of natural justice, mechanical, discriminatory and in manner even contrary to their own instructions namely ROI dt. 10.05.22 and thereafter,
c) Directing the respondents to consider the request of the applicant for choice posting in terms of the provisions of ROI dt. 10.05.22 keeping in view that the applicant has already crossed the age of 57 years including more than 7 years of his tenure at the present place of posting.
d) Allowing the O.A. of the applicant with all other consequential benefits and costs.
e) Any other fit and proper relief may also be granted to the applicant.
BRIEF FACTS:
The applicant was appointed as a Fireman in the year 1991. In the year 2016, the applicant was promoted as Leading Hand Fire on promotion cum posting basis and as a Station Officer in the year 2021. On 10.05.2022, the respondents issued ’Army Ordnance Corp Records Instructions Serial No. C/01/2022 Posting of GP ’B’ Non-Gazetted and GP ’C’ of AOC’ (Annexure A/2). As per the provisions stipulated under ROI dated 10.05.22, the applicant submitted his choice and requested for transfer in September 2022 (Annexure A-3). The applicant in his representation submitted his father has died and he has the sole responsibility of his mother who is around 85 years old suffering from blood pressure, diabetes and heart disease. He also submitted that his wife is suffering from thyroid and the knees of both her legs are damaged and she is undergoing treatment at Safdarjung Hospital in Delhi. He further submitted that he had met with an accident due to which there is constant pain in his legs and water keeps coming from his eyes whereby his vision becomes blur. He therefore requested to be transferred to near to his residence and gave the options of (i) CASD Delhi Cantt. (ii) COD Delhi Cantt. (iii) VSD Delhi Cantt. (CVD Delhi Cantt). However, the request of the applicant was declined stating that vacancy was not available in choice station, and the applicant was asked to forward wider choice.
2. In January 2024, a batchmate of the applicant was adjusted at OSG Delhi C/o COD Delhi, whereas, the respondents have been declining the request for posting of the applicant at OSG Delhi on the pretext of non-availability of vacancy. Being aggrieved, the applicant again requested for choice posting in accordance with relevant rules and instructions on the subject in March 2024. However, again the respondents declined the request of the applicant as ’Vacancy Not Avaialable In Choice Station, Forward Wider Choice’ at all the four choice stations i.e. (i) CASD Delhi Cantt. (ii) COD Delhi Cantt. (iii) VSD Delhi Cantt (CVD Delhi Cantt) (iv) OSG (SRD) but at the same time adjusting, another junior of the applicant at VSD Delhi Cantt.
3. From 24th May 2024 onwards, respondents have been given reasonable time to file reply in several hearing. When the matter was listed on 28.11.2024, a detailed order was passed. Para 4 of the order reads as under:
"4. As a last opportunity, two weeks’ time is given to the respondents to file their reply subject to payment of cost of Rs. 15,000/- to Prime Minister Relief Fund which should be recovered from the salary of all those employees working under the respondents who have been instrumental in causing delay in filing reply despite innumerable opportunities given to them. Further, it is also direct
