PREMLAL PANDA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Writ Petition has been filed challenging the Judgment and order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack (hereinafter called 'the Tribunal) dated 9.1.2009 passed in O.A. No. 385 of 2007 dismissing the petition which was filed against an order of transfer.

(2.) THE facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the Petitioners are working as Upper Division Clerk and Assistant in Central Institute of Fisheries Technology (CIFT) at Burla Research Centre in the district of Sambalpur, wherein institute had undertaken to work on research of fisheries development. On 10.01.2006 and 14.05.2007 policy decisions had been taken by the competent authorities to close down the said research centre of CIFT at Burla. Therefore, most of its employees have to be transferred to Headquarters/ Research Centres as per the order of the competent authority vide it's letter dated 21.05.2007 (Annex. -1) and in view thereof, Petitioners had been transferred to the Headquarters at Cochin vide Order Dated 21. 5.2007 (Annex. -1). Further the policy decisions had been taken that some of the employees may be retained at Burla research centre of CIFT till shifting process is over and vide Order Dated 8.6.2007 only six persons have been retained at that Burla centre till completion of the shifting process. Thereafter, on 10.08.2007 in supersession of earlier order another order was passed transferring six employees, out of which three persons are transferred to Visakhapatnam Research Centre of CIFT and other three persons including the Petitioners are transferred to the Headquarters at Cochin. Being aggrieved Petitioners challenged the order of transfer by filing the Original Application No. 395 of 2007 before the Tribunal on the ground that Petitioners were at the verge of retirement therefore they may be transferred to any nearby places or retained at Burla. However, the said Original Application has been dismissed vide Judgment and Order Dated 9.01.2009. Hence this petition.

(3.) THE submission made by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners that Petitioners are at the verge of retirement is factually not correct, in view of the fact that the dates of retirement of the Petitioner No. 1 is 31.03.2011 and Petitioner No. 2 is 31.11.2012. Therefore, there is a complete fallacy in the submission that Petitioners are likely to reach the age of superannuation very soon.