ORDER

(As per Mr. Sudhi Ranjan Mishra, Judicial Member) The applicant filed the OA challenging the Office Order dt.

03.02.2021 issued by the 1 st respondent transferring him from 2 nd respondent Institute to 3rd respondent Institute and also the consequential Relieving Order dt. 09.02.2021 w.e.f. 10.02.2021.

2. Facts of the case, in brief, are as follows: The applicant was appointed in National Institute of Nutrition, Hyderabad (for short NIN), the 2nd respondent and he is now working as Technical Officer-B. While so, National Animal Resource Facility for Biomedical Research Authority (NARF-BR), the 3rd respondent, was created at Biotech Park, Genome Valley, Turkapalli, Hyderabad, the 3rd respondent, under the control of 1st respondent ICMR w.e.f. 03.12.2015.

Thereafter, the NCLAS, a project under the 2nd respondent has been merged with NAFR-BR and 37 employees of NCLAS were transferred to NIN and 11 employees working in NIN were transferred to NARF-BR vide order dt.

29.08.2018. Out of the 11 employees transferred from NIN, only 3 reported at NARF-BR and the remaining 7 are at still in NIN while one employee retired. The applicant was tested COVID positive in January 2021 and he was on leave till 06.02.2021. On 09.02.2021, he was served with the transfer order dt. 03.02.2021 transferring him to 3rd respondent institute and a relieving order was also issued on 09.02.2021.

3. The applicant contends that as seen from the transfer order, though he is a technical person, his services are also sought to be utilized in Administration as per his qualification. The other employees who were earlier transferred vide order dt. 29.08.2018 are allowed to continue in 2nd respondent Institute whereas he is transferred, which is arbitrary and discriminatory. His son is studying 6th class and his wife is also employed in Hyderabad and therefore, they would be put to great difficulty. Further, the new place of posting is about 70 kms away from the present place of working, which may force him to live separately leaving his son and wife at Hyderabad.

4. The respondents filed a reply affidavit stating that the applicant was appointed as Technician on 11.01.2002 in NIN and went on to become Technical Officer-B on 01.04.2017 on successive promotions. The reasons for transferring the staff from one Institute to another Institute are given vide ICMR letter dt. 03.02.2021, as per which, there is a serious shortage of administrative staff in the Institutions/ Centres & HQrs. Transfer of trained regular staff among the Institutes is necessary to fill up the gap on functional requirement and in public interest. It was also decided that some of the technical cadre personnel would be utilized in for specific Administrative, Finance & Accounts works in addition to their normal duties, based on this qualifications. Accordingly, the applicant was transferred from NIN to NARF-BR. The distance from the residence of the applicant and the 3rd respondent Institute is only 20 Kms.

5. It is further stated by the applicant was relieved on 10.02.2021 and he filed this OA on 12.02.2021. Interim order was declined on 19.02.2021.

Thereafter, he joined at the 3rd respondent institute on 22.02.2021.

Therefore, the OA has become infructuous. Six other employees were transferred apart from the applicant and they joined the 3rd respondent Institute.

6. The respondents cited the order of the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana dt.05.02.2021 in CWP No. 7857 of 2020 to assert that the transfer is an incident of service and no Govt. servant has a vested right to remain posted at a place of his choice nor can an employee dictate terms for posting as per his choice. That the employer is vested with power to exercise powers as per administrative exigencies keeping in view the public interest. They also cited orders passed by the Hon’ble Ahmedabad Bench of this Tribunal dt. 03.03.2021 dismissing OA