V. N. BHASKARAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner was transferred from Kochi to Chennai. He is an employee of CIFNET, a Central Government Organisation in public sector. He was transferred from Kochi to Chennai on 14/07/2006. He challenged it before the Central Administrative Tribunal in OA 481/06. That OA was disposed of by Ext. P1 order to the following effect:

(2.) Thus finding that a vacancy was available in Kochi, he was directed to be retained in Kochi, taking note of his pending request for voluntary retirement with effect from after noon of 31/12/2006. Thus the net effect of Ext. P1 is that the petitioner shall be retained in Kochi until 31/12/2006 and he should have been allowed to peacefully retire from there, upon his request. This request was granted as per Ext. P3 dated 01/11/2006. As per Ext. P3, alleged to be on a temporary basis, he was also shifted from Kochi to Chennai until 29/12/2006, 30th being holiday and 31st being his date of his voluntary retirement sanctioned as per the directions of the Central Administrative Tribunal. That means, the administration had, while issuing Ext. P2 and P3 circumvent the order in Ext. P1 to pursue the alleged harassment against petitioner to shift him to Chennai. This is not conducive to a civilized nation like that of ours, where rule of law prevails. The Director, who issued Ext. P3 had done the worst which an officer can do, in the light of Ext. P1 order which really gave a protection to the petitioner to continue in Kochi, until his voluntary retirement, which he opted in the wake of his transfer to Chennai and to avoid it. On the other hand, by Ext. P3, the Director had adopted a method to keep out the petitioner's service from Kochi and to post him in Chennai, until he is voluntarily retired. It is in the above circumstances, the petitioner approached the Director again to withdraw his request for voluntary retirement which he had made really as is revealed from Ext. P1 to avoid his shifting to Chennai. He was justified in claiming withdrawal, because he could not, in the light of Ext. P3, avert that order of transfer to Chennai. At the same time the day of voluntary retirement sanctioned in Ext. P2 was far approaching. That was why he had approached the Tribunal again seeking early orders on the application seeking withdrawal of voluntary retirement before it could take effect. In the light of this, the Tribunal should not have rejected that OA as too premature. He therefore did not have any option except to approach this Court with this Writ Petition.

(3.) Now it is revealed that the request for withdrawal of voluntary retirement has also been rejected as per order dated 08/01/2007, stating some reason or other which the petitioner submits, is unsustainable. If it is illegal, that is a matter for fresh challenge before the Tribunal. It is submitted by the petitioner that he is proposing to challenge that order before the Tribunal.