Sunday, October 16, 2011

OA NO 378/2009 on ????????????????-10- 2010





Satish Kumar S.T.,
Aged about 36 years,
S/o late Thimmaiah,,
Working as Postal Assistant Chikmagalur H.O.,
O/o Post Master, Chikmagalur H.O.,
Resident of B.16, Postal quarters, Belt Road,
Chikmagalur – 577 101. ...Applicant

(By Advocate Shri B.Veerabhadra)


1. The Superintendent of Post offices,
Chikmagalur division,
Chikmagalur – 577 101.

2. The Principal Chief Post Master General,
Postal, Karnataka Circle, Palace Road,
Bangalore – 560 001.

3. The Union of India,
Rep., by its Secretary,
Department of Posts,
Ministry of Communication and
Information Technology,
Dak Bhavan, Parliament Street,
New Delhi – 110 001.

4. The Post Master General (STA),
S.K.Regio, Palace Road,
Bangalore – 560 001. ….Respondents

(By Senior Central Government Standing Counsel Shri M.V.Rao for
Respondents-1 to 4)



This application is filed under Section 19 of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
2. It is the claimed of the applicant that the applicant is working in the grade of PA (Postal Assistant) to HO at Chikmagalur continuously since 12.5.2003 to 7.6.2010. The Superintendent of Post Office, Chikmagalur Division who is Respondent-1 and who is an officer with due authority, issued his transfer order dated 5.4.2010 and accordingly the applicant took charge as PA to SO at Aldur. He made a representation dated 5.7.2010 to be brought back to Chikmagalur which was considered favourably by Respondent-1 who issued an office memo dated 6.7.2010 (Annexure A4) by virtue of which the applicant joined back at Chikmagalur on 6.7.2010 itself.

3. The respondents department has however, painted a different scenario. According to this, on 15.1.2010 the respondent-1 had issued office memo for rotational transfers for the year 2010-2011 (Annexure R1) in which it was indicated that the applicant was due to rotational transfer. Immediately thereafter, i.e., on 4.2.2010 the applicant gave representation for retaining him for one more year at Chikmagalur and this was rejected by Respondent-4 who is the Post Master General, STA, S.K.Region, an authority superior to the respondent-1 and also the authority to lay down policy guidelines. Keeping in view this rejection, the rotational transfer orders issued by Respondent-1 under his office memo dated 5.4.2010 included the name of applicant who was posted as Postal Assistant, Aldur SO. Thereafter, the applicant again gave representations dated 13.4.2010 and 29.4.2010 requesting cancellation of his transfer orders and the two representations were once again rejected by Respondent-4 vide his letter dated 5.5.2010, produced at Annexure R2. In view of this the applicant joins as Postal Assistant at Aldur on 8.6.2010, then once again gives a request representation to Respondent-1 on 5.7.2010, the Respondent-1 considers it and orders his transfer back to Chikmagalur on 6.7.2010 and thus the applicant joins back as Postal Assistant, Chikmagalur on 6.7.2010. When Respondent-4 while reviewing rotational transfers in his Division observes this irregularity caused by retransfer of the applicant to Chikmagalur, he issues orders to Respondent-1 for cancellation of the same on 30.8.2010 at Annexure R3. Accordingly, the first respondent issues his official letter dated 3.9.2010 asking the applicant to rejoin at Aldur whereupon the applicant remained absent on medical grounds for 12 days during which period he also approaches this Tribunal on 17.9.2010 and obtains a stay order against his transfer to Aldur.

4. The learned Counsel for applicant has requested for quashing the impugned order dated 3.9.2010 at Annexure A6 issued by Respondent-1 transferring him back to Aldur from Chikmagalur. He claims that the said order is arbitrary, discriminatory and void and is also opposed to the Rules. But the learned Counsel for applicant has not cited any incidence whatsoever which would show any discrimination or arbitrariness or action against Rules by the Respondents. Para-4.2 and 5.2 of the application make the narration appear as if Respondent-1 had transferred him from Chikmagalur to Aldur which he obeyed by joining at Aldur on 8.6.2010 whereafter he applied for coming back to Chikmagalur and was brought back on 6.7.2010 only to be suddenly reposted back to Aldur thus making it appear to be arbitrary. However, he has chosen not to reveal the full facts about the office memo for rotational transfer which was declared as far back as 15.1.2010 and whereafter his representations not to be disturbed from Chikmagalur were repeatedly rejected by Respondent-4 (Refer representation of the applicant dated 4.2.2010, 13.4.2010 and 29.4.2010). Again at para-4.3 of he OA mentions that his representation dated 4.9.2010 at Annexure A7 has not yet been replied thus trying to create an impression of failure on behalf of the respondents. But here again, the applicant chooses not to disclose the information that his earlier three representations have been rejected. Had he mentioned this, he would have truthfully acknowledged that there was no inaction on the part of respondents. The learned Counsel for applicant has drawn our attention to Annexure R3 wherein sub-para-2 refers to the name of the present applicant showing him as Postal Assistant, Aldur SO and directing that the transfer order issued in his respect may be immediately revised as it is violative of the principles of rotational transfer followed through out in the Division. This has also been reiterated at Annexure R4 which clearly states: “Hence it is once again reiterated that no modifications of Rotational Transfers be done without obtaining the prior approaval of this office”. It is issued by Respondent-4 and is clearly with reference to the consideration shown by Respondent-1 to the applicant by way of his order dated 6.7.2010. However, combining the two, of the learned Counsel for applicant wanted to believe that read together, these two orders are unfair and contradicting to each other.

5. We cannot agree with him. The learned Counsel for respondents has pointed out that once the Head office at S.K.Region had declared the rotational transfers in January, 2010 and directed it to be applied all over the Region, it is in the interest of administrative discipline that no deviations should be made, especially when the representation of the applicant was rejected three times. Moreover, he took objection that the applicant has chosen not to reveal his knowledge of the rotational transfer list issued in January, 2010 and the three instances of rejection of his representations.

5. In view of the above, we find no merit in the OA. The grounds of his personal inconvenience are only for the department to consider as every one working in the department would have some difficulties or other to claim consideration from the seniors. But the seniors have to weigh these considerations against the administrative discipline and smooth working of the office. Clearly, this is an area where no judicial interference is warranted. Hence we have no hesitation in dismissing the case. We also consider it fit to impose a token cost of Rs.200/- (Rupees Two Hundred only) on the applicant for not revealing complete information in his OA. Accordingly, the OA is dismissed.



No comments:

Post a Comment