Disposed

Sanjit Kumar v. the Union of India and 2 Ors.

Gauhati HC3 Apr 2019WP(C)/2210/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court disposed of a petition challenging an order rejecting a request for reversion to a former post. The Court observed the petitioner failed to cite specific legal grounds for reversion. It directed the authorities to consider a fresh representation containing factual details and legal basis regarding reversion without treating the rejected communication as a bar.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was not granting specific relief but was reserved liberty to make a fresh representation for consideration by the competent authority.

Sanjit Kumar Vs the Union of India and 2 Ors. — Service and Employment | Gauhati HC (2019)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010071752019

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : WP(C) 2210/2019

¶5

1:SANJIT KUMAR

¶6

S/O- SHRI ISHWAR PRASAD, ASSTT. ACCOUNTS OFFICER (AAO), OFFICE OF THE CONTROLLER OF DEFENCE ACCOUNTS, UDAYAN VIHAR, SATGAON, NARENGI, PIN- 781171, DIST- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1:THE UNION OF INDIA AND 2 ORS.

¶9

REP. BY THE SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI- 110001

¶10

2:THE CONTROLLER GENERAL OF DEFENCE ACCOUNTS ULAN BATAR ROAD PALAM DELHI CANTONMENT PIN- 110010

¶11

3:THE CONTROLLER OF DEFENCE ACCOUNTS UDAYAN VIHAR P.O. UDAYAN VIHAR SATGAON NARENGI PIN- 781171 DIST- KAMRUP (M) ASSA

¶12

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A AHMED

¶13

Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I.

¶14

Page No.# 2/4

¶15

B E F O R E

¶16

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. A.S. BOPANNA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI

¶17

03-04-2019

¶18

(A.S. BOPANNA, C.J.)

¶19

Heard Mr. A. Ahmed and Ms. R.R. Rajkumari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India has accepted notice for the respondents. In that view, notice being complete, the petition is taken up for consideration.

¶20

The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 26.9.2019 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (‘CAT’ for short) in O.A. No.37/2018.

¶21

The petitioner, who was working as Senior Auditor, was promoted as Assistant Accounts Officer. The petitioner, at the first instance, has accepted the promotion and reported in the promoted post. However, due to certain domestic issues, the petitioner being of the opinion that he would not be in a position to discharge his duties in an appropriate manner in the promoted post as Assistant Accounts Officer, is seeking that he be reverted to the post of Senior Auditor which he earlier held. The representation to that effect made by the petitioner was rejected by the official respondents through the communication dated 7.8.2017. It is in that light, the petitioner was before the CAT assailing the communication dated 7.8.2017.

¶22

The CAT, on taking note of the contentions put forth, had referred to the letter dated 19.7.2017 wherein while indicating that his request for reversion cannot be considered, the respondents have also indicated that his request for transfer to Patna would be considered

¶23

Page No.# 3/4

¶24

in the next Annual Volunteer List. In that view, the CAT taking note of that aspect has disposed of the application since the respondents themselves would consider transferring the applicant to Patna. However, what is required to be noticed is that the CAT has not addressed the issue as to whether the impugned letter dated 7.8.2017 was issued in accordance with law and as to whether any other consideration in that regard is required.

¶25

Though in a normal circumstance, it would have been appropriate to remit the matter for consideration in that regard, we are of the opinion that in the present facts said course need not be adopted. It is for the reason that the very perusal of the representation addressed by the petitioner seeking for reversion would indicate that except for stating certain domestic issues and seeking for reversion, the petitioner himself has not indicated the basis on which such request is being made, to say whether the service rule provides for the same. That apart, presently the learned counsel for the petitioner has also sought to rely on certain instances where such consideration for reversion is stated to have been made by the respondents and, in that light, the communication dated 9.6.2016 is referred.

¶26

On that aspect, we are not in a position to express any opinion at this point, since the consideration, even if taken note, was in respect of different post and the consideration, in any event, would arise keeping in view the position acquired by a person and the rules governing the service condition. In that view, without expressing any opinion on the claim of the petitioner, the petitioner is reserved the liberty to make a fresh representation indicating all these details and make his request. If such representation is made, the competent authority shall take note of the same and consider the same in accordance with law without treating the earlier impugned letter dated 7.8.2017 as a bar for such consideration. Such consideration by the respondents shall be made expeditiously

¶27

Page No.# 4/4

¶28

and the result of the consideration shall be made known to the petitioner.

¶29

The petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶30

JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶31

Comparing Assistant

Sanjit Kumar v. the Union of India and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjit Kumar v. the Union of India and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Navajit Patowary Vs Karabi Thakuria Patowary

Mainak Patra Vs Smti Ellora Patra Mahanta

Syed Mehtaj Ameen Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Pradyut Nath Vs Smt Jhumki Nath and 2 Ors.

Rajesh Chetry Vs Sunita Devi Sharma Chetry

Sri Swapan Kumar Das Vs Smt Anjali Das