Saturday, November 3, 2012

OA NO.144 / 2010 on 25 AUGUST, 2010






Sri Ajith A.,
S/o late N. Arjunan,
Aged about 46 years,
Working as Pharmacist,
Composite Hospital,
CRPF, Yelahanka,
Bangalore.                                                       ...                                 Applicant

(By advocate Shri S. Narayan)

1. Union of India,
    rep. By Secretary,
    Ministry of Home Affairs – North Block,
    New Delhi – 110 001.

2. Director (Medical)
    Directorate General, CRPF,
    Medical Branch, Opposite CGHS
    Dispensary,, Sector-IV, Pushp Vihar,
    New Delhi – 17.

3. Deputy Inspector General,
    Medical, Composite Hospital,
    CRPF, Yelahanka,
    Bangalore – 560 064.

4. Mr. Avadesh Kumar Gupta,
    Working as Pharmacist,
    Composite Hospital, CRPF,
    Sindri, Dhanbad,
    Jharkhand State – 829 122.                        ...                                 Respondents

(By Advocate Shri M. Rajakumar,
Addl. Central Govt. Standing Counsel for R-1 to R-3)


Hon'ble Smt. Leena Mehendale, Member (A) :

            This case is filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985,
- 2 -
to challenge the order dated 31.3.2010, at Annexure-A2 transferring the applicant from Composite Hospital, Bengaluru to 108 Bettalion, RAF, CRPF, Vedavyasapuri, Meerut.

2.         The applicant is working as a Pharmacist in the Directorate (Medical) of the CRPF, under the Ministry of Home Affairs. 
3.         Under the same impugned order, Respondent No.4 is ordered to be transferred to Bangalore from Sindri, Jharkhand Stage.  Both these transfers of the applicant and Respondent No.4 have been stayed by this Tribunal during the pendency of this OA.

 4.        The learned counsel for the applicant has argued mainly on the following grounds for setting aside the imugned order:-
(I)        It violates para 16 (a) and (b) of the transfer guidelines dated 21.10.2001 (Annexure-A/3) which reads as under:
16.               All Transfers and postings will be ordered by Medical Directorate.  The following guidelines in connection with transfer of hospital staff are hereby issued.  However, the consideration of public interest and administrative requirements and efficiency will prevail over the guidelines mentioned here under:-

a)          The normal tenure of posting in Cgs/Base Hospitals/Trg. Institutions/Mahila Bn & other duty Bns etc. will in general be 3 years. However, this tenure may increase/decrease in case of different categories of personnel depending on the requirement of particular expertise, their authorisation in limited places and gender requirements aiming at minimum unnecessary transfers.

b)          As far as possible hospital staff in the last 3 years of service before retirement may be given their choice posting/near home posting.

(II)              Although the present post of the applicant is abolished by the said office, which appears to be the reason for transfer, the applicant finds that two new posts of SI Pharmacist are created as per order dated 11.2.2010 under which the para-medic staff has been restructured.  Respondent No.4 has been
- 3 -
 brought not against the newly created post of SI Pharmacist, but, only to the post of Pharmacist which the respondents claim to have been abolished. Presently, the applicant and Respondent No.4 are holding the same post and in the sme pay scale and grade.  Hence, it is claimed by the applicant that he should be retained at Bangalore against the post of ASI/Pharmacist till the completion of his tenure of 3 years at Bangalore.
(III)     It is further claimed that looking at the rush of patients at Yelahanka Composite Hospital, CRPF, Bangalore, the respondent department should not have abolished the 3 posts of Pharmacist.  Had they followed this principle, it would have given him the chance to complete his tenure of 3 years.
5.                  The learned counsel for the respondents has argued in reply to state that from the guidelines for transfer, it is clear that the consideration of public interest and administrative requirements and efficiency would have a higher priority than the guidelines.  It is generally observed that in effecting many transfers, while efforts are made to accommodate the requests and convenience of many employees, it is not possible to do so in respect of each and every employee.  In the present case too, the respondents have done so.  Hence, unless a malafide is attached to a transfer order, the same cannot be called as violative of general guideliens or arbitrary.
            Secondly, the principles to be followed for restructuring have to depend on many considerations such as the rush of patients as well as financial and man-power resources available to the department and many other aspects.  Therefore, it is best left to the concerned department.  Under the said restructuring, as per the guidelines of MHA under their letter dated 11.02.2010, the surplus ASI and Pharmacists posted in 50/100 bedded Composite CRPF Hospitals have to be transferred to other establishments even without completing normal tenure.
- 4 -
            Thirdly, it is contemplated that Respondent No.4 who is at Sl. No.36 in the combined seniority list is likely to be promoted to the rank of SI Pharmacist in near future whereas the applicant being at Sl. No.126, not due for promotion for quite some time in future.  Hence, the respondent department has tried to accommodate two ASI/ Pharmacists against the restructured post of SI Bangalore, namely those standing at Sl. No.3 and Sl. No.36 (present Respondent No.4).  They have also tried their best to accommodate the applicant at a static posting such as Meerut in view of the fact that he had to be transferred out of Bangalore before his normal tenure of 3 years.  The learned counsel for respondents has rightly cited the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2007 AIR SCW 6708 wherein it has been held that “interference by the court in transfer order is not normally justifiable as transfer is an incident of service”.

6.                  We agree with the above submissions of the learned counsel for the respondents and see no reason to interfere with the impugned transfer order.

7.                  The OA is therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.

                        (LEENA MEHENDALE)                              (N.D.RAGHAVAN)
                                    MEMBER (A)                                    VICE CHAIRMAN  


No comments:

Post a Comment