ASHA SHUKLA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition challenges interim order of Central Administrative tribunal (for short 'cat') dated 21. 12. 2005. passed in Original Application No. 553 of 2005.

(2.) THROUGH this original application, petitioner has challenged her transfer order from ahmedabad to Bhopal mainly on two grounds, that it is mala fide, passed with a view to accommodate Respondent 3 and, that it is going to cause serious inconvenience to her since she is suffering from acute rheumatoid arthritis, likely to be operated soon. Both these questions were advanced before the CAT. They have been dealt with and decided against the petitioner and in favour of the respondents holding that order of transfer does not suffer from mala fides nor arbitrary. Further, hardship may not be a ground for interfering with the transfer order. Both these questions are raised through this petition. Shri M. S. Rao forcefully contends that CAT has technically decided the Original Application on merits having gone into questions raised deeply, thereafter recording the finding, which may affect the decision on merits. We fail to appreciate this submission. Both these submissions were advanced before us also. When submissions are advanced before a Court, they have to be answered. Order so passed pertains to the application under consideration and not to merits, which are to be examined by the Court/cat, as the case may be. Having considered the matter, we are of the opinion that CAT has considered the matter quite seriously and justifiably. When question pertains to mala fides, it cannot be rested on the ground that it was passed on Friday and petitioner was relieved in a particular fashion. These facts are not enough for demonstrating that order of transfer is mala fide. Further, whether the transfer is harsh, is for the employer to consider. These are administrative matters, unless mala fide, illegal, beyond jurisdiction, Court may not interfere with it. It is within jurisdiction of the employer to decide whom to transfer and where to transfer in the interest of administration. We do not go into the merits of the case, particularly the other" commercial and administrative reasons assigned by the respondents, since they may be considered by the CAT while disposing of the matter. In Ajay Shashikant Patel vs. Sports authority of India and Ors. , SCA No. 16498 of 2005, we had occasion to consider the Apex court decision in Union of India and Ors. vs. Janardhan Debanath and Anr. , 2004 (4) SCC 245. In Paragraph 14 the Apex Court said:-

(3.) THEREFORE, we find no case for interference with the interim order and the petition is dismissed, otherwise, order dated 21. 12. 2005 safeguards the interest of the petitioner to the extent possible.