ARUN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that he has been singled out for being transferred out of Nagpur. The justification sought to be given by the respondent that the experience gained by the petitioner was the cause of the order of transfer was not acceptable for the reason that there were various other employees who had obtained such training and who could have been transferred instead of the petitioner. The petitioner's wife was in service with Zilla Parishad Nagpur and his daughter was differently abled. Transferring the petitioner in such manner caused prejudice and therefore there was no justifiable reason to issue the order of transfer. Reference was made to various transfer orders issued to indicate that sufficient time had been granted to those employees to report at the place of transfer while on the other hand the petitioner was granted time of only ten days to report at Bhusawal. The representation made by the petitioner had not been properly considered. The Tribunal failed to consider the aforesaid relevant aspects and dismissed the Original Application. It was thus submitted that the order passed by the Tribunal be set aside and the petitioner's transfer be cancelled.

(3.) We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and we have perused the documents placed on record. It is undisputed that the petitioner has been serving at Nagpur for last nineteen years. In the representation made by the petitioner dtd. 21/09/2022 he had sought reconsideration of the order of transfer by assigning various reasons that have been referred to herein above. The said representation was considered and with the approval of the Competent Authority a Speaking Order came to be passed on 28/09/2022. It was noted that the petitioner had gained experience in drawing and designing and he was working in CDD and Research and Development Sec. of the Ordnance Factory. Having been imparted training in AUTO CAD he was found suitable for transfer to Bhusawal on functional requirement. Thus on the ground of public interest his services came to be transferred noting that there was an urgent functional requirement at the place of transfer. Moreover, the Office Memorandum dtd. 30/09/2009 issued by the DOPT that when a spouse was employed under the Central Government and other spouse is employed under the State Government, the spouse employed under the Central Government may be posted to the same station or if there is no post in that station, in the State where a spouse is posted has been considered and the petitioner has been retained in the State of Maharashtra. It is stated that in the interest of administration, the transfer had been effected.