UNION OF INDIA Vs. SXJ VASAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge in this Writ Petition is against Annexure-'a' order dated 4-5-2006 passed by the Central administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, in O. A. No. 108/2006 and also annexure-'b' order dated 1-2-2006 passed by the Central Administrative tribunal, Bangalore Bench, in O. A. No. 373/2005. Both the applications were filed by Sri S. X. J. Vasan, respondent in this Writ Petition. The petitioners were the respondents in O. A. Nos. 373/2005 and 108/2006.

(2.) THE respondent is a Commissioner of Central Excise. While he was working as Additional Commissioner, he was transferred and posted as additional Commissioner at Bangalore, on 12-8-2002. Later he was promoted as Commissioner on 5-11-2002 and was posted at Bangalore itself. Thus, from 12-8-2002, the respondent was working at Bangalore. On 27-4-2005, the respondent submitted an application for transfer to chennai mainly on two grounds. The first ground was that his wife who is a Commissioner of Income Tax is working at Chennai and as per the transfer policy, husband and wife may be posted at the same station. The second ground was that the grand daughter of the respondent had health problems due to the climate in Bangalore and the Doctor had advised to shift her to Chennai. The request of the respondent for transfer to Chennai was not granted by the Department while issuing Annexure-'a-7' order dated 12-9-2005. Thereupon the respondent filed O. A. No. 373/2005 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, questioning the decision of the Department to reject his request for transfer to Chennai. Though the Department contested the claim of the applicant in O. A. No. 373/2005, the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, in its order dated 1-2-2006 (Annexure-'b'), came to the conclusion that the applicant had a very strong case for favourable consideration of his request by the respondents for transfer to Chennai and directed the respondents to consider the applicant's representations keeping in view the various points discussed in the order of the Tribunal. The respondents were directed to take a decision within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order of the Tribunal. After considering Annexure- 'b' order passed by the Tribunal, the first petitioner-Union of India passed annexure-'a-15' order dated 2nd/8th March, 2006 rejecting the request of the respondent for transfer to Chennai. In Annexure-'a-15' order, the first petitioner held that even though the posting of officers and their working spouses at the same station, is governed by the guidelines issued by the Department of Personnel and Training, the guidelines inter-alia provide that while deciding requests for posting husband and wife at the same station, efforts may be made to post husband and wife together as far as possible and such postings together at the same station are invariably done especially if their children are less than 10 years of age. According to the first petitioner, such contingency did not arise in the case of the respondent herein. In effect, the first petitioner held that no officer has a vested right to claim transfer to the place of posting of his or her spouse and that the policy of the Government is only to make efforts to post husband and wife together as far as possible. But the first petitioner has noted that such postings together in the same station are invariably done, especially, if their children are less than 10 years of age. The first petitioner has further taken the view that the guidelines do not cover the case of grand children. Since the claim of the respondent was based on the health problem of the grand child staying with him, the first petitioner found that the above mentioned guidelines referring to children of less than 10 years of age did not apply to the case of the respondent. Regarding the claim for posting at Chennai on the ground that the respondent's wife is working at Chennai, the first petitioner has stated in Annexure-'a-15' order that on administrative ground, it is not always possible to synchronize the husband's and the wife's postings at the same place, especially, when such shift is in violation of the transfer policy. According to the first petitioner, the respondent is bound to complete the tenure period of six years at Bangalore and his request for transfer at this stage is premature. It is stated that if the respondent is transferred before completing the tenure period of six years prescribed under the guidelines, such transfer will be in violation of the transfer policy. It is also stated that even if the respondent's request for transfer from Bangalore before completing the period of six years is to be considered, he can be posted only to 'b' Class or 'c' Class station as per the transfer policy.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by Annexure-'a-15' order, the respondent filed O. A. No. 108/2006 which was disposed of by the Central Administrative Tribunal as per Annexure-'a' order dated 4-5-2006. The Central Administrative tribunal allowed O. A. No. 108/2006 and directed the second respondent in the application to transfer the applicant from Bangalore to Chennai as requested by him and to post him in any one of the posts of Commissioner at Chennai within a period of three weeks from the date of the order.