SHYAMAL KUMAR MUKHERJEE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. The case of the Petitioners is that they were employees of the Department of the Accountant General in the State of Bihar and on the bifurcation of the State in two states; Bihar and Jharkhand, they went to Bihar, Patna Office. The case of the petitioners is that they could not have been transferred. When such question regarding transfer came before the Central Administrative Tribunal, the Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed the O.A. of the petitioners and the order of dismissal was upheld by this Court. However, while upholding the order of transfer, it was observed that if at all there is any observations or directions in relation to employees of the Accountant General Office in U.P., which is pending adjudication before the Allahabad High Court and later that became the subject matter of adjudication in the Supreme Court, then the petitioners would be entitled to ask for any relief after the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

(2.) The petitioners applied to the Central Administrative Tribunal for deputation allowance. The Central Administrative Tribunal rejected the claim of the petitioners. Before this Court also the same argument is being advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are entitled to the deputation allowance. A specific question was put to the learned counsel for the petitioners whether the order of transfer incorporates an expression that the petitioners will be sent on deputation, the learned counsel for the petitioners was kind enough to accept that the expression 'deputation' has not been incorporated in the order of transfer of the petitioners. It was also clearly pointed out to us that the transfer order of U.P. employees has been amended and the expression 'deputation' has been 2. incorporated in that order. In view of the fact that both the transfer orders have been on different footings and nowhere the word 'transfer' on 'deputation' has been incorporated which is in relation to U.P. employees but such amendment was not made in the transfer order of the petitioners i.e. the employees of the office of the erstwhile Bihar State. The parity of two cases cannot be seen and it cannot be said that the petitioners have earned some favourable order in terms of the order of the Allahabad High Court or by the Supreme Court.

(3.) We have been taken through the order of the Allahabad High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court nowhere indicated in its order that those who were transferred were entitled to be granted any deputation allowance. In the final order of the Supreme Court there was no whisper about the grant of deputation allowance, it cannot be said that the liberty granted to the petitioners in the decision of this Court exists. In that view of the matter, if the Central Administrative Tribunal has not granted any relief to the petitioners, we do not think that any illegality has been committed. This petition is thus meritless and is accordingly dismissed.