O. A. Nos. 58/11 & 59/11. Case: 1. Abdul Khader Kunju Naina S/o Late Muhammed Kunja Naina, Junior Engineer (Civ), O/o Garrison Engineer (NW), Fort Kochi, 2. P. P. Gopinathan S/o Late P. K. Padmanabhan, Junior Engineer (Civ), O/o Garrison Engineer (NW), South Kochi Vs 1. Union of India, Represented by Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi, 2. Chief Engineer, Military Engineer Services, Southern Command, Pune, 3. Chief Engineer (Naval Works), Military Engineer Services, Naval Base, Kochi. Central Administrative Tribunal

Case NumberO. A. Nos. 58/11 & 59/11
JudgesDr. K. B. S. Rajan (Judicial Member)
IssueService Law
Judgement DateJuly 22, 2011
CourtCentral Administrative Tribunal

Judgment:

Dr. K. B. S. Rajan (Judicial Member), (Ernakulam Bench)

  1. As the above two OAs have the same legal issue, these are dealt with in this common order.

  2. The facts of the case in OA No. 58 of 2011 are as hereinafter mentioned. The applicant, is functioning as JE (Civ) in the office of GE(I) (NW) Fort Kochi, which comes under CE (NE) Kochi. He stands transfered to CWE (NW) Mumbai coming under CE (Navy) Mumbai in a non sensitive post vide Annexure A-1 transfer order. On receipt of the transfer order, the applicant has penned a representation to the second respondent for review and cancellation of the transfer order so far as the applicant is concerned. Annexure A-3 refers. This was forwarded through proper channel on 14-09-2010 but the G.E (NE) returned the said representation along with letter dated 13 Nov2010, referring to another letter dated 04 Nov 2010 of the 3rd respondent. In the said letter of 04 November, 2010, there was a reference of another letter dated 15th October, 2010 of the 2nd respondent, stating that the representation is returned unactioned. The reason for having returned the representation unactioned is that the representation was received after 21 days of the issue of transfer order, whereas, the applicant could receive the transfer order only on 6 September, 2010 and his representation was sent on 14 September, 2010. Further, the applicant had requested for waiving the time limit in case there be any delay in filing the representation, vide Annexure A-4 and there is no response for the same so far. Mainly legal grounds have been taken by the applicants vide para 5 of the O.A. In addition, non consideration of the representation has also been taken as one of the grounds. Yet another ground taken is that the transfer is inter alia on CML basis, as has been spelt out and yet there have been replacements and the same makes the transfer order vitiated.

  3. The facts of the case in respect of the applicant in OA No. 59 of 2011 are by and large the same save that his posting order is to CWE (Navy) Vasco and that he could receive the transfer order on 31-08-2010 and submitted a representation on 06-09-2010 vide Annexure A-3. However, the respondents proposed to relieve the applicant on 31-01-2011 vide Annexure A-4. Other contentions are as in the other O.A.

  4. Respondents have contested the O.A. and their contentions, which are by and large the same in both the cases are as under:-

    On 9th August 2010, when 6 JE (Civ), including the applicant were posted out of Kochi under CML-10 following reasons were taken into account for the said posting:-

    1. Kochi complex was surplus.

    2. As per Para 42 of A2 "while...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT