O R D E R - ORAL
Per : Smt. Leena Mehendale, Member (A)
Heard all the three counsel.
2. This is a matter of transfer. Both the applicant and respondent No.4 were promoted as Assistant Nursing Officer (for brevity 'ANO') in April, 2012 and posted out of Byculla Railway Hospital, where both of them have been working. Both of them joined their new post so as to avail the benefit of promotions and, thereafter, both of them applied for transfer as ANO, Byculla Railway Hospital, undoubtedly, the most convenient posting for both of them. The transfer order dated 03.01.2013 at Annexure A-1 is issued by the Railway Department. It appears that at the request of three lady ANOs, they have been given transfers showing Smt. Asha from Byculla to Nagpur, Smt. Kamal from Nagpur to Bhusawal and Smt. Samina Shaikh from Bhusawal to Byculla.
3. Since the request of the applicant which was made on April, 2012 has not been considered while accommodating the Respondent No.4 from Bhusawal to Byculla, she has filed this Original Application. In this, she has made two grounds, firstly, her application for request of transfer to Byculla is given in April, 2012 itself, while the application for respondent No.4 has been given at a later date. Hence, as per the guidelines, her application should have been considered first. Secondly, by way of her representation dated 17.04.2012 at Annexure A-3, she has explained the family responsibilities and Health problems being faced by her. She is due to retire in August, 2014 i.e. within next two years. Hence, she prays that she should be accommodated at Railway Hospital Byculla by canceling the appointment of respondent No.4.
4. We also heard the learned counsel for official Respondents, Shri V.D.Vadhavkar and the learned counsel for the respondent No.4 Smt. H.P.Shah. The learned counsel for Railways submitted that the transfer guidelines issued by Railways from time to time are only guideline and some deviations some time are required and permissible. The impugned transfer order is the chain transfer order involving three lady ANOs whose request for their convenient posting has been accommodated by the said order. The learned counsel for the respondent No.4 submits that the respondent No.4 is also due to retire in February, 2014 i.e. within one year from now and having been posted at Bhuwsawal which is far from Mumbai at the fag-end of service, she also faces family difficulty. Hence, the order should not be canceled, and the OA should be dismissed.
5. On considering both the sides, we feel that the official respondents have not made any error in trying to accommodate three of their lady officers. It is true that the applicant has filed her request application earlier than the respondent No.4. However, in the administration, it is not always possible to accommodate everyone exactly as per their request. Moreover, as pointed out by the counsel for respondent No.4, traveling from Pune to Mumbai in case of urgent family needs is more convenient than traveling from Bhusawal. We, however, are not going into these details. We do not find this case worthy of interfering with the administrative decisions of the respondents. There appears no malafide. At this stage, we can also make presumption that the official respondents will sympathetically consider the request of present applicant whenever an opportunity arises.
6. Hence, this OA is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Smt.Chameli Majumdar) (Smt.Leena Mehendale)
Member (J) Member (A)