Back
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
MR. SURESH KUMAR BATRA, J
Neeraj Vats – Appellant
Versus
Sports Authority Of India – Respondent
O.A./67/2024
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
Illegal and Arbitrary Transfer: The tribunal found that the transfer order issued to the contractual employee was illegal and arbitrary, lacking justification and transparency, and was intended to harass the employee for pursuing legal rights (!) (!) (!) .
Contractual Employee Transfer Restrictions: The principle that contractual employees cannot be transferred unless explicitly provided for in service rules was upheld. Such employees are not subject to transfer as an incident of service unless specific provisions apply (!) (!) .
Transfer to Circumvent Legal Proceedings: The transfer was deemed to be a means to circumvent ongoing legal proceedings and restraining orders, thereby impairing the employee's right to a legal remedy (!) (!) (!) .
Transfer Not Based on Public Interest or Administrative Need: The tribunal observed that the respondents failed to demonstrate any public interest or administrative necessity justifying the transfer, especially given the transfer involved a significant distance and replacement with another contractual employee at a higher remuneration (!) (!) (!) .
Malafide Intent and Malice: The transfer was found to be motivated by malice and bad faith, particularly targeting the employee for asserting legal rights, which renders the action unlawful and invalid (!) (!) .
Legal Principles on Transfer: Transfer orders made in violation of established legal principles—such as acting in good faith, transparency, and for legitimate administrative reasons—are liable to be set aside. Arbitrary or malafide transfers violate the principles of fairness and reasonableness (!) (!) .
Contractual Employees and Transfer Incidents: Employees engaged on contractual basis, especially those not governed by specific service rules, do not have a right to transfer. Such transfer actions require clear legal provisions or specific contractual agreements, which are absent in this case (!) (!) .
Court’s Power to Intervene: Courts and tribunals can only interfere with transfer orders in exceptional cases where there is evidence of arbitrariness, mala fide intent, or violation of principles of fairness, rather than as a routine matter (!) (!) .
Outcome: The tribunal quashed the transfer order, recognizing it as an act of arbitrariness and bad faith, and allowed the original application, thereby reinstating the employee at his original place of posting (!) (!) .
No Costs Awarded: The decision was made without awarding costs (!) .
Would you like assistance with any specific aspect of this case or further legal analysis?
ORDER
Per: SURESH KUMAR BATRA MEMBER (J):-
1. The applicant has filed present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following relief:-
(i) To set aside the impugned order dated 19.01.2024 (Annexure A-15) passed by respondent no.2, whereby the applicant was illegally transferred from the present place of posting i.e. NRC, Sonipat (Haryana) to LNCPE, Trivandrum (Kerala) just to unnecessary harass the applicant and in order to circumvent the order dated 14.05.2019 (Annexure A-5) and order dated 24.09.2020. (Annexure A-8) passed by this Tribunal in O.Α. No.491 of 2019 titled as ’Krishan Kumar & Others Vs. Union of India’ and the impugned action of the respondent no.2 is in passing the impugned order dated 19.01.2024 is totally illegal, arbitrary;
(ii) stay the operation of the impugned order dated 19.01.2024 (Annexure A-15) passed by respondent no.2 during the pendency of the present Original Application and further direction be issued to the respondents to allow the applicant to work at the present place of posting i.e. Sonipat (Haryana).
2. The facts of the case, as pleaded by the applicant, are that the applicant is working with the respondent no.2 i.e. Sports Authority of India, Northern Regional Centre, Sonipat as Physiotherapist having been appointed on contractual basis on 03.09.2012 (Annexure A-1). Initially, the contract was for a period of one year but the same was renewed on each and every year till date (Annexures A-2 colly).
3. The respondent no.2 vide letter dated 27.03.2019/29.03.2019 ordered that the services of the contractual staff should be discontinued, which was challenged by the applicant and other similarly situated employees by way of OA No.491 of 2019, titled as Krishan Kumar & Others Vs. Sports Authority of India & Others". The respondents had issued letters dated 04.08.2020 and 11.09.2020 (Annexure A-6 and A-7), wherein, it was directed that an agreement of contractual employee if not signed before 30.09.2020 or received upto this date, their salary will be stopped w.e.f. 01.10.2020. Feeling aggrieved, the applicant filed M.A. No. 926 of 2020 seeking issuance of directions to the respondents not to force the applicant to execute/sign agreement and this Tribunal restrained the respondents from forcing the applicants to sign the agreement pending the OA and also directed to release the salary of the applicants as per the Rules and their entitlement.
4. The applicant further submitted that another illegal and discriminatory action of the respondents in fixing the cut-off date for grant of benefit of 7th Central Pay Commission w.e.f. 01.10.2020 qua contractual employees instead of 01.01.2016 was challenged by the applicant and other similarly employees by way of OA No.56 of 2021 titled ’Krishan Chander & Others Vs. Sports Authority of India & Others’. The issue of non-grant of dearness allowance to the contractual employees at par with the regular counterparts has also been challenged in O.A. No. 766/2023 by the applicant and other similarly situated employees.
5. The applicant vide order dated 19.01.2024 has been transferred from NRC Sonepat to LNCPE, Trivandrum (Kerala), which is 2900 kms from his present place of posting.
6. The contention of the applicant is that since the applicant is fighting for his legal vested rights with the respondents before this Tribunal, therefore, the applicant has been transferred to far off place by the respondents to circumvent the order of this Tribunal and to harass the applicant, which is illegal and arbitrary.
7. The respondents have filed written statement contesting the claim of the applicant. It has been stated there that it is a routine transfer of 26 staff including the applicant, therefore, it is purely owing to administrative reasons and for optimum utilization of the available manpower across the country. They have also stated that it is clearly mentioned in clause 9 of the offer letter for appointment that the no req
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
