Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 11253
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Suchitto Kumar Das, A
Puloke Kumar Das – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
OA/350/1486/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. R A Khan
For the Respondents: None
The obligation to issue a reasoned order in administrative decisions is paramount to ensuring fair treatment of applicants.
Headnote:The Tribunal considered the applicant's request under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 regarding his deputation to the position of Welfare Assistant. The applicant contended a legitimate expectation for extension based on appointment terms. The Court found the impugned order cryptic and lacking reasoning. Key issues framed pertained to the justification of the refusal to extend the applicant’s tenure and the obligation to issue a reasoned decision. The final order directed respondents to consider the applicant's representation and maintain status quo pending this consideration.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. expectation of continued employment based on appointment terms. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. necessity of rationale in administrative refusals. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 3. responses must be addressed promptly and fairly. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
Per: Hon’ble Mr. Suchitto Kumar Das (A):
1. This matter is taken up by Single Bench for disposal with the consent of both the parties in view of the revised list dated 10.09.2021 issued under Sub- Section (6) of Section 5 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 , and, since no complicated question of law is involved.
2. Ld Counsel for the applicant is present. He files affidavit of service which is taken on record.
3. It is noted that although notice has been served upon the respondents, none appears for them.
4. The applicant has approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 , praying for the following relief(s):-
“a) Order or orders directing the respondents to set aside/cancel/withdraw/quash the Office Order being no. Admn.I/II 6(3)/Vol.II/111 dated 18.09.2025 issued by the respondent no.6 being marked with the letter "A6" hereof.
b) Order or orders directing the respondents to set aside/cancel/withdraw/quash the Office Order being no. Admn.I/II 6(3)/Vol.II/110 dated 18.09.2025 issued by the respondent no.6 being marked with the letter "A7" hereof.
c) Order or orders directing the respondents to extend the service of the applicant in the post of Welfare Assistant in the office of the respondent no.3.
d) Order or orders directing the respondent authorities to certify and produce before this Hon'ble Tribunal the records of the case so that conscionable justice may be done.
e) Any other appropriate order or orders that as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper.”
5. Ld Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a Sr. Accounts Officer posted in the Office of Accountant General (E & RSA) West Bengal. He opted for a deputation to the ex-cadre post of Welfare Assistant. He, thereafter, has been appointed to the said post for an initial period of 01 year and his appointment letter also mentions that “the period of deputation to the ex-cadre post of Welfare Assistant shall ordinarily not exceed three years”.
6. Ld Counsel for the applicant submits that this particular statement in the appointment letter has given rise to a legitimate expectation in the applicant that his appointment in the ex-cadre post of Welfare Assistant will continue for at least 03 years.
7. Ld Counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant has come to learn that his current departmental head has recommended his case for consideration before the competent authority. However, he has been informed on 18.09.2025 that the competent authority has not agreed to the extension of his tenure and vide letter dtd. 18.09.2025 the applicant has further been directed to report to his original place of posting. The respondents have also published a fresh notification dtd. 18.09.2025 for appointment to the ex-cadre post of Welfare Assistant. Being aggrieved with the same the applicant has made a representation dtd. 23.09.2025 before the competent authority which has not been considered till date.
8. Ld Counsel for the applicant, therefore, prays for an interim order staying the operation of the letter/ order dtd. 18.09.2025 as well as the notification dtd.
18.09.2025.
9. I have gone through the representation dtd. 23.09.2025 made by the applicant and also the impugned letter/ order dtd. 18.09.2025. I find the impugned letter/ order dtd. 18.09.2025 is cryptic in nature and it does not specify any reason for not extending the deputation period of the applicant.
10. At this stage after hearing the Ld Counsel for the applicant, I deem it fit to dispose of the OA by directing the respondents to consider the representation of the applicant dtd. 23.09.2025.
11. In view of the above, the respondents are directed to consider the representation of the applicant dtd. 23.09.2025 and to communicate their de
