Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 10332

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
LATA BASWARAJ PATNE, Judicial Member
K.Sudhakar Reddy – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.021/00452/2023

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: K.R.K.V.Prasad
For the Respondents: B.Gayatri Varma

Transfer of disabled government servant upheld despite proximity to retirement; DoP&T exemption from rotational transfer directory, subject to administrative exigencies; no interference absent mala fides or lack of updated disability certificate. (28 words)

Headnote:(A) Service Law - Transfer policy - Persons with disabilities - DoP&T OM dated 31.03.2014 - Para 2H provides that as far as possible, persons with disabilities may be exempted from rotational transfer policy/transfer and allowed to continue in the same job where they have achieved desired performance, subject to administrative constraints - Applicant with visual disability appointed under VH quota, served 18+ years at same station, transferred near retirement - Tribunal held transfer valid as policy followed judiciously, representation considered, no mandatory exemption without updated benchmark disability certificate, and transfer within same command to location with medical facilities - Interference not warranted absent mala fides or statutory violation. (Paras 17, 19)

(B) Transfer of government servants - Scope of judicial review - No legal right to posting at place of choice - Transfer incident of service necessary for public interest and efficiency - Courts/Tribunals cannot interfere routinely unless mala fide or violative of statutory prohibition - Administrative exigency prevails over individual convenience. (Paras 16, 19)

Facts of the case:
Group B non-gazetted employee with visual disability challenged transfer order after 18 years at station, 2 years 7 months before retirement, claiming violation of disability exemption policies, non-consideration of representation citing health issues and dependent care, and failure to follow transfer committee guidelines. Respondents defended on grounds of rotational policy for staff over 10 years tenure, all-India transfer liability, administrative exigencies to prevent vested interests, and non-submission of updated disability certificate.

Findings of Court:
Transfer order upheld; policy applied judiciously; representation considered; no interference as administrative constraints justified action despite short remaining service.

Issues: Validity of transfer of visually impaired employee near retirement; applicability of disability exemption from rotational transfers; adequacy of consideration of representation and medical constraints.

Ratio Decidendi: DoP&T guidelines for disability exemptions are directory ('as far as possible') subject to administrative constraints; without updated benchmark disability certificate, exemption unavailable; judicial review limited to mala fides or statutory violation; rotational transfers for long tenures serve public interest.

Result: Original Application dismissed.

Table of Content
1. applicant's challenge to transfer orders citing disability exemption. (Para 1 , 2)
2. respondents justify transfer per policy despite disability claims. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
3. applicant's arguments on dop&t oms and disability protections. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
4. court notes administrative exigency overrides disability preferences. (Para 10 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
5. oa dismissed; pursue grievance with authority. (Para 20)

ORDER

PER: HON’BLE DR. LATA BASWARAJ PATNE, JUDICIAL MEMBER

1. By this Original Application, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:-

“To call for the records pertaining to letter issued from File No.102/16/POLICY/ADM/DE/2022 (FMS ID-70122), dated 23.05.2023; Transfers/Posting of Office Superintendent issued vide No.551/ICT/DE/VOL-II/1 dated 15.06.2023 to the extent of the applicant and Letter No.551/ICT/DE/Vol-II dated 02.08.2023; and set aside and quash the transfer order dated 15.06.2023 and letters dated 23.05.2023 and 02.08.2023 along with any other consequential proceedings to the extent of the applicant, by declaring that the letter dated 23.05.2023 issued by the 1^st respondent is in violation of the DoP&T instruction dated 31.03.2014 and direct the respondents to retain and continue the applicant at Secunderabad in the present place of posting by granting all consequential benefits.”

2. Brief facts of the case in a nutshell are as under:

The applicant who is a Visually Handicapped person was appointed against VH quota as Lower Division Clerk in the respondent organisation. He was initially posted in Jammu and was transferred to the present place of work in 2004. He is presently working as Superintendent in the office of the 3^rd respondent. While so, he has been transferred from Secunderabad to Pune and the representation requesting for retention submitted by him is rejected. The rejection of the representation is on the lines of a letter issued by the 1^st respondent on the ground that the applicant has completed 18 years at Secunderabad. This stand is in violation of the respondents’ policy that the General Policy shall pave way for special instructions. The applicant is retiring in 2 years 6 months and a number of other employees are continued at the same station for more than 10 years with no displacement and hence, the transfer is under challenge as the respondents have decided to relieve the applicant at the fag end of his service by rejecting the representation in a mechanical way without meeting the crucial ground of disability. The OA is filed on the ground that the transfer is in violation of the transfer policy read with DoP&T OM dated 31.03.2014 in respect of exemption of disabled employees from rotational transfer/transfer.

3. On notice, the respondents have filed detailed reply opposing the relief on the ground that the applicant was appointed in Defence Estates Organisation as Lower Division Clerk (Group ‘C’ post) under the Visually Handicapped(VH) quota on 30.05.2000 in the office of the Dte. DE, NC, Jammu Cantt. vide appointment letter dated 22.12.1999. The said appointment carries liability to serve anywhere in India. After joining the said office, the applicant was transferred in the office of Defence Estates Officer, Secunderabad on 18.10.2004 as LDC and further promoted in situ to the post of Upper Division Clerk (Group ‘C’) w.e.f. 04.10.2011. He was further promoted to the post of Office Superintendent (Group B Non-Gazetted) w.e.f. 01.03.2022. The applicant has completed total 18 years of service and he is serving at the present office for more than 10 years. The respondents further contended that the Ministry of Defence, Dte General, Defence Estates (DGDE) vide letter dated 25.11.2005 and amended vide letter dated 08.05.2019 had issued ‘Transfer Policy for Defence Estates Personnel other than Group ‘A’ and ‘B’ Officers’ in order to bring about rationalisation in the matter of transfer and posting of Group ‘C’ and ‘D’ staff. Vide the MoD, DGDE

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2024 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 10332

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALLATA BASWARAJ PATNE, Judicial MemberK.Sudhakar Reddy – AppellantVersusUnion of India – RespondentORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.021/00452/2023

Transfer of disabled government servant upheld despite proximity to retirement; DoP&T exemption from rotational transfer directory, subject to administrative exigencies; no interference absent mala fides or lack of updated disability certificate. (28 words)

Cases Referred (1)

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
LATA BASWARAJ PATNE, Judicial Member
K.Sudhakar Reddy – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.021/00452/2023