UDAI VIR SINGH RATHI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been preferred under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the legal pregnability of the order dated 11.3.2011 in OA No.2785/2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench (for short the tribunal) whereby the tribunal has declined to interfere with the order of transfer dated 18.8.2010 transferring the petitioner applicant from Delhi to Andaman and Nicobar Islands on the basis of a request made by the Chief Secretary of the said Administration. The petitioner, as is manifest, had assailed the order of transfer initially in OA No.2451/2010 before the tribunal which was disposed of on 30.7.2010 requiring him to make a representation. The representation was rejected vide order dated 18.8.2010 and the order of transfer was reiterated. It was contended before the tribunal that the petitioner has an impeccable record and many laurels to his credit and had functioned extremely well in many sensitive posts in Delhi Police and, therefore, there was no justification to transfer him to Andaman & Nicobar Islands. It was also urged that the vacancies of ACP levels exist at both Delhi and its outlying segments and, hence, he should not have been transferred. It was also urged that he is going to retire on 31.12.2013 and, therefore, there was no warrant to send him to the said place. Apart from that various other personal difficulties were highlighted.

(2.) The tribunal placing reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court rendered in Mysore Paper Mills Ltd., Bangalore v. Mysore Paper Mills Officer Association, Bhadravati and another, 1999 6 SLR 77, B. Varadha Rao v. State of Karnataka, 1986 AIR(SC) 1955, Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar, 1991 AIR(SC) 532, Union of India v. S.L. Abbas, 1993 AIR(SC) 2444 and Airport Authority of India v. Rajeev Ratan Pandey, 2009 10 JT 472, Rajendra Singh v. State of UP and others, 2010 1 SLR 632 and Masood Ahmad v. State of U.P., 2007 STPL (LE) 39042 SC came to hold as follows:

(3.) Being of this view, the tribunal dismissed the original application. It is worth nothing this Court on 26.5.2011 had passed the following order: