OA No. 1167/2017. Case: Vinod Kumar Vs Union of India and Ors.. Central Administrative Tribunal

Case NumberOA No. 1167/2017
CounselFor Appellant: M.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate and For Respondents: Gyanendra Singh, Advocate
JudgesP.K. Basu, Member (A) and Dr. Brahm Avtar Agrawal, Member (J)
IssueService Law
Judgement DateApril 11, 2017
CourtCentral Administrative Tribunal


P.K. Basu, Member (A), (Principal Bench At New Delhi)

  1. The applicant after serving in the Indian Army between 1990 till 31.05.2009 was inducted as a Junior Engineer (JE) in the Civilian Establishment of the Army in June, 2009. The applicant was first posted at Subroto Park, Delhi Cantt. and thereafter at AF Palam, Delhi Cantt.

  2. The Chief Engineer, Western Command issued posting/transfer order from tenure to peace and peace to tenure of 22 officers vide order dated 20.05.2015 including the applicant who was posted from AF Palam to AF Srinagar (Peace to Tenure) and was to report by 20.06.2015.

  3. The OA No. 2156/2015 filed by the applicant was dismissed along with others connected OAs by a common order dated 18.04.2016. The applicants approached the Hon'ble High Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 3772/2016 and 3782/2016 and the observations of the High Court are quoted below:-

    3. In paragraph 4 of the impugned order, the Tribunal observes that the petitioner had alleged violation of the letter/policy dated 26.5.2008 but except for making bald assertion, no specific details were highlighted. The Tribunal therefore was inclined to accept the statement of the respondents that the seniority list, as per the policy, was circulated and no objection was raised.

    4. Learned counsel for the petitioners, on the other hand, submits that the petitioners had given details and particulars of several seniors, 52 in number (in fact 58 persons) in Annexure-1. The said list, it is submitted, is of officers senior to the petitioners and who have not been given tenure posting from 1991 onwards.

    5. It is apparent that the said aspect has escaped notice and examination of the Tribunal. It is not adverted to and examined. Reasons and grounds mentioned in paragraph 4 of the impugned order, therefore are factually incorrect and cannot be sustained.

    6. In these circumstances, we set aside the order dated 18.4.2016 with an order of remand for fresh adjudication. At the time of adjudication, the aforesaid assertions will be taken into consideration and examined. We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the question of seniority list or the averments or assertions made by the petitioners with respect to the said aspect as far as Annexure-1 is concerned.

  4. The applicant's name is indicated as transfer from peace to tenure. The applicant approached this Tribunal again in light of the order of the Hon'ble High Court and his application along with others were disposed of vide order dated 10.01.2017 with a direction to the respondents to consider the representations of the applicants in those OAs by passing an appropriate reasoned and speaking orders thereon, in accordance with law.

  5. The respondents in compliance thereof have passed order dated 16.03.2017 in which the various points raised by the applicant in his representation dated 20.01.2017 have been addressed. The contents of order dated 16.03.2017 is quoted below:-

    "1. Refer your application dated 20 Jan 2017 received vide CE (AF) WAC Palam letter No. 11001/Vinod/21556/66/EIL dt 31 Jan 2017 through proper channel, with reference to CAT (PB) New Delhi Court Order dated 10 Jan 2017.

  6. You were issued a reasoned and speaking order earlier also vide this HQ letter No. 30305/SA/REPT/06/EIC-1 dated 13 Jun 2015. The contention of the dept remains same as...

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