Your World of Legal Intelligence
 India | 1-929-605-4013

O.A. No. 050/00273/2014. Case: Bachacha Lal Vs The Union of India. Central Administrative Tribunal

Judgment Cited in Precedent Map Related
Case NumberO.A. No. 050/00273/2014
CounselFor Appellant: Gautam Saha and Anamika Saha, Advocates and For Respondents: A. Haider, Advocate, Addl. Standing Counsel
JudgesAkhil Kumar Jain, Member (Ad.)
IssueConstitution of India - Articles 14, 16; Railways Act, 1989 - Section 143
Judgement DateAugust 14, 2014
CourtCentral Administrative Tribunal

Judgment:

Akhil Kumar Jain, Member (Ad.)

  1. This O.A. has been filed by the applicant for quashing and setting aside office order No. 103/2014 dated 21/21.02.2014 (Annexure A/1) whereby the applicant has been transferred from Bapudham, Motihari to Saharsa under Chief Reservation Supervisor. Further prayer has been made to direct the respondents to permit the applicant to continue to work on the post of Chief Commercial Supervisor at Bapudham, Motihari.

  2. The case of the applicant is that he belongs to Gond Tribe which is a Scheduled Tribe. As such he is entitled to benefits of reservation and concessions as granted by the respondents to all persons similarly situated to the applicant. While the applicant was working as Chief Reservation Supervisor II at Raxaul Station, he was transferred to Bapudham Station as Chief Reservation Supervisor by the Senior Divisional Officer, Samastipur and on being relieved, he joined at Bapudham on 30.06.2012. At Bapudham he was implicated in a criminal case i.e. R.P.F. Motihari, (Bapudham) P.S. Case No. 201/2013 dated 21.07.2013 under section 143 of the Railway Act. He was granted bail by the Ld. 1st Additional Session Judge, West Champaran, Bettiah on 29.07.2013 and the trial in the case is still going on. The applicant is required to appear before the court now and then in order to defend himself. He has alleged that in order to adversely affect the trial against the applicant, the respondents have transferred him from Bapudham to Saharsa Station.

  3. The applicant has submitted that his transfer is illegal, arbitrary and malafide as the same has been ordered without taking into account specific orders of the Railway Board relating to transfer of employees belonging to Scheduled Tribes. In this connection he has referred to orders of Railway Board issued vide letters No. E(SCT) 70 CM 15/3 dated 19.11.1070; E (SCT) 74 CM 15/58 dated 14.01.1975; 78-E (SCT) 15/25 dated 06.07.1978 and 85-E(SCT) 1/43 dated 24.12.1985 as quoted in Railway Board's Compendium of Master Circulars Vol III published by Bahri Brothers, which read as follows:-

    "The employees belonging to Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes should be transferred very rarely and for very strong reasons only. Posting of employees belonging to these communities on their initial appointment/promotions/transfers should as far as practicable be confined to their native district or adjoining districts or places where Railway Administration can provide the quarters subject to their eligibility."

  4. The applicant has further stated that his only daughter Kumari Khushboo Rani is studying in Motihari Engineering College, Motihari as a B. Tech student and her session is from 2012 to 2016. As such the daughter of the applicant is in mid-session of her higher studies. Consequently, the transfer of the applicant from Bapudham Station to Saharsa Station which is more than 300 km away and that too after 1 1/2 year of his joining at Bapudham Station is totally against Railway Board's order No. E(NG) II-72/TR/14 dated 01.10.1971. and E (NG) I-86/TR/14 dated 06.01.1988 as quoted in Bahri's "Railways Establishment and Labour Laws 2004" at page 193, which reads as follows:-

    Mid session transfer should be kept down to the minimum required in the interest of administration.

  5. The applicant has claimed that he is legally entitled to the benefit of the specific provisions of Railway Board's circulars which is highest decision making body in the Railway. It is settled law that similarly situated persons are to be given similar treatment. The applicant has submitted that he requested and persuaded respondent No. 3, Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Samastipur for permitting him to work as usual on the post of Chief Reservation Supervisor at Bapudham after setting aside order dated 20/21.02.2014 and after considering all aspects, the respondent No. 3 permitted him to work as usual. Accordingly, the applicant is still working on the same post and has not been relieved. However, the impugned transfer order has not been set aside as yet. Hence, the...

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