By Hon’ble Dr.Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A):-

2

The Review Application has been filed by the

Review Applicant in respect of this Tribunal‟s order

dated 24.05.2023 in OA No. 3717 of 2022. After

receipt of the present Review Application notices were

issued to the review respondents who have filed their

reply in response to the Review Application filed by the

Review Applicant.

The Review Applicant in his RA from para No.3.1

to 3.18 has assailed the impugned Order as factually

incorrect in respect of the summary of averments and

pleading recorded by this Tribunal in respect of the

applicant. Each of the paragraph starts with the

assertion “that the impugned order is factually

incorrect” and “it has suppressed vital facts” or “the

impugned order is grossly wrong.” This Tribunal feels

that these utterances are intemperate, and lack

decorum while seeking a review of a judgment. There

are some apparent typographical error in para 5

which has been repeated „para as 5‟ again. There is

also a mention of the name of Shri Anand Mathur,

Indian Railway Personnel Service (IRPS) Officer. In his

submission in the RA in paragraph No.3.19, the Review

3

Applicant has assailed the operative paragraph of the

impugned order stating that “it is inaccurate”, “having

factual

shortcomings”,

“vital

facts

being

not

adjudicated” and “evidence and submissions of the

applicant ignored” by the Tribunal while passing the

said order.

The learned counsel for the review applicant

during the arguments reiterated the assertions taken

in his Review Application. On 09.10.2023, the learned

counsel tendered his arguments, which have been

reproduced in the following paragraphs.

3.1 Learned counsel for the applicant stated that in para 6

of the order dated 24.05.2023 passed by this Hon’ble

Tribunal in O.A. No. 3717/2022, the following had been

recorded by the Tribunal:-

“6. Learned counsel for the respondents argues that the

employees of the Central Government or Indian Railways have no

right to stay at a particular place or on a particular post. It is the

prerogative of the competent authority to post the personnel

depending

upon

the

administrative

exigencies

of

the

Organizational requirements. Secondly, he averts that, the

applicant has spent nine years at Delhi including his period spent

in Central deputation. The Central Deputation was recommended

by the Railway Board considering the spouse position of the

applicant.”

3.2 Learned counsel for the applicant stated that this was

a miss-statement as the transfer of the applicant was not

recommended by the Railway by considering the spouse

position of the applicant. This position was neither stated

4

by the respondents in their counter affidavit nor it was

avered by them during the arguments.

3.3 Learned counsel for the applicant further stated that

vide order dated 20.01.2023 passed in O.A. No.

3717/2022, this Tribunal had observed in the following

manner:-

“In my considered view, the representation of the applicant with

respect to his transfer does merit consideration by the Competent

Authority for considering the fact that there are specific

provisions in the extant policy and instructions governing the

subject. Why the respondents have not chosen to give applicant

the benefit of these instructions is something for them to explain

and this can be adjudicated upon at the time of hearing and

decided the OA which seeks substantive relief. However, on the

other hand, I have also to recognize that the applicant holding a

very senior position cannot equate himself with subordinate staff

wherein one person could automatically replaced another.

Moreover, I find that in the instant case, the issue is not transfer of

the applicant from one place to another, but a fresh posting to him

in the department after his repatriation from deputation in the

Ministry of Corporate Affairs. However, besides this limited

observations I would not like to dwell or comment upon the merits