M NAGARAJAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.289 of 2009 dated 05.08.2009, wherein 10th respondent challenges the said order.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, parties herein are referred to as they are arrayed in the O.A.

(3.) Applicant, 9th respondent and 10th respondent are employees working in Indian Railways. While the applicant and 10th respondent were working at Guntakal Division in South Central Railway, the 9th respondent was working at Madurai in Southern Railway. Under the Indian Railway Establishment Code, under Rule 230, transfer on mutual exchange is permissible. The same is regulated by a circular described as Serial Circular No.66/2006 based upon Board's letter bearing No.E[NG]I-2006/TR/6 dated 21.04.2006 wherein it is further provided that in case of inter-railway and intra- railway transfers on mutual exchange, the Board had reviewed the work out of the scheme of transfers on mutual exchange and on noticing that there are instances where the employees who earlier made a request for such mutual exchange transfer and later opted to back out from the same when orders are issued and even after one of the two employees gets relieved to join the new place. In that view, the Board had reviewed the matter and decided that as mutual transfers are ordered with the consent of both parties, it should be made clear right at the time of forwarding applications for mutual transfer that no request for backtracking from the mutual exchange arrangement will be entertained under any circumstances. Based on the aforesaid scheme and Circular of the Indian Railways, the 9th respondent applied for mutual transfer with the applicant vide his application in Proforma-D dated 30.08.2004. By the aforesaid mutual transfer arrangement, 9th respondent had agreed for mutual transfer vis-a-vis the applicant herein and the effect of the mutual transfer will be that while the applicant will take the place of 9th respondent at Madurai Division in Southern Railway and in turn the 9th respondent would take the place of applicant at Guntakal Division in South Central Railway. In terms of the Circular referred to above, Proforma-D of the 9th respondent, duly filled in, was sent to the General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad, vide letter No.P(S)676/VI/ RG/ IRMT/249 dated 22.06.2005 by the Southern Railways, Headquarters Office, Personnel Branch, Chennai,. In turn, the applicant also applied for mutual transfer simultaneously by submitting an application duly filled in the requisite proforma as stated above to the authorities in South Central Railways on 01.02.2005 and the said proforma, along with the Service Register extract and DAR clearance of the 9th respondent, was duly forwarded to the CPO/SC vide letter No.676/Mech/TP/ ALP/341 dated 01.08.2005. In turn, the said proposal was duly approved by the Divisional Railway Manager, on 23.11.2006, and after communication of the said approval to CPO/SC vide letter dated 24.11.2006, the same was duly sanctioned by the CPO/SC and was in turn forwarded to the GM(P), Southern Railway, vide letter No.P.676/Mech/TP/ ALP/341 dated 14.12.2006 of the South Central Railway. While this was the position pending, 10th respondent applied for similar mutual transfer on 19.09.2006 proposing mutual transfer with the 9th respondent. Since the 9th respondent had already given consent in favour of the applicant for mutual transfer, which was already processed as referred to above, the request of the 10th respondent was rejected by the South Central Railway vide letter No.G/P.676/III/1/MNN dated 13.09.2007.