Dismissed

M.Renuka Sashi v. the Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyala Sangathan

Kerala HC30 Jun 2016OP (CAT)/175/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismisses an original petition challenging a Central Administrative Tribunal order that vacated an interim stay on a government servant's transfer. The court held the Tribunal's reasoning was not perverse or illegal, leaving the petitioner to approach the Tribunal for further relief.

What did the court decide?

The Original Petition is closed without expressing an opinion on the merits of the rival contentions or the petitioner's request for voluntary retirement.

M.Renuka Sashi Vs the Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyala… — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶5

THURSDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/9TH ASHADHA, 1938

¶6

OP (CAT).No. 175 of 2016 (Z)

¶7

PETITIONER :

¶8

M.RENUKA SASHI, AGED 51 YEARS, W/O K.M. SASHI,

¶9

TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHER (ENGLISH),

¶10

KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA-I, CALICUT 673 020,

¶11

PERMANENT ADDRESS "SREEDEVI",OPPOSITE CIVIL STATION, CALICUT 673 020.

¶12

BY ADVS.SRI.T.C.GOVINDASWAMY SMT.KALA T.G. SMT.T.N.SREEKALA

¶13

RESPONDENTS :

¶14

THE COMMISSIONER, KENDRIYA VIDYALA SANGATHAN No.18, INSTITUTIONAL AREA, SHAHEED JEET SINGH MARG, NEW DELHI 110 016.

¶15

THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER (ESTT), KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN, No.18, INSTITUTIONAL AREA, SHAHEED JEET SINGH MARG, NEW DELHI 110 016.

¶16

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN REGIONAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI 682 020.

¶17

THE PRINCIPAL, KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN, REGIONAL OFFICE, CALICUT 673 020.

¶18

BY SRI.K.MAYANKUTTY MATHER, SC, KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SA

¶19

THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

OP (CAT).No. 175 of 2016 (Z)

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :-

¶23

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF OA NO 180/00348/2016 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFOR ETHE LEARNED TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH.

¶24

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN OA NO 180/00348/2016 DATED 19TH APRIL 2016, RENDERED BY THE LEARNED TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH.

¶25

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF MA NO 180/482/2016 IN OA NO 180/00348/2016 FILED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS DATED 03 MAY 2016.

¶26

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN MA NO 180/00482/2016 IN OA NO 348/2016 DATED 17-05-2016, RENDERED BY THE LEARNED TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH.

¶27

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF MISC. APPLICATION NO 180/608/2016 IN O.A 180/00348/2016 FILED BY THE PETITIONER, BEFORE THE LEARNED TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH.

¶28

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :

¶29

True copy

¶30

P.A to Judge

¶31

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON & ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JJ.

¶32

O.P.(CAT)No.175 of 2016

¶33

Dated this the 30^th day of June, 2016

¶34

JUDGMENT

¶35

Anil K.Narendran, J.

¶36

The petitioner is the applicant in O.A.No.348/2016 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench. The petitioner, who was a Trained Graduate Teacher (English) in Kendriya Vidyalaya-I, Calicut, has approached the Tribunal in that O.A. seeking an order to set aside Annexures A1 and A11 to the extent it relates to her and seeking an order directing the respondents to allow her to continue at Kendriya Vidyalaya-I, Calicut, as if Annexures A1 and A11 orders have not been issued at all.

¶37

On 19.4.2016 the Tribunal granted an interim order directing that the applicant be retained at Kendriya Vidyalaya-I, Calicut and posted the matter to 17.5.2016. On that date, after hearing both the sides, the Tribunal vacated the said order by Ext.P4 order dated 17.5.2016 in

¶38

O.P.(CAT).No.175 of 2016

¶39

¶40

M.A.No.482/2016 in that O.A. Paras.5 to 7 in Ext.P4 order

¶41

read thus;

¶42

“The learned counsel for the respondents submits that an employee cannot file petitions one after the other, whenever an order of transfer is issued by the authority concerned and stall the transfer process which would affect the smooth running of the institution. A Government servant cannot disobey a transfer order. It is the duty of the officer, to first report for work where she/he was transferred and make representation as to what may be his/her personal problems. The tendency of not reporting at the place of posting and indulging in litigation needs to be curbed as has been held in the various decisions. A Government servant has no vested right to remain posted at a place of his or her choice nor can he/she insist that he must be posted at one place or the other. He is liable to be transferred in the administrative exigencies from place to another. Transfer is only an incidence of service.

¶43

It is also pointed out by the respondents that A- 11 order dated 08.04.2016 was attempted to be served on the applicant on the same day through the office staff, but it could not be materialised and so it was sent by registered post on 09.04.2016. The postal endorsements would show that the postman tried to deliver the article at the address of the

¶44

O.P.(CAT).No.175 of 2016

¶45

¶46

applicant (at her house) on 09.04.2016. Nobody available there was prepared to accept the same. Hence, intimation was given on 11.04.2016 and again on 12.04.2016. Finally, it was returned back on 22.04.2016. Therefore, according to the respondents, it was a deliberate attempt made by the applicant to see that the order of transfer is not accepted or received by her and then she moved this Tribunal on 19.04.2016. The learned counsel for the respondents would submit that considering all the aspects and considering the fact that she had moved this Tribunal earlier also, the interim order passed in this case has to be vacated.

¶47

We are inclined to accept the submission made on behalf of the respondents. The interim order passed by this Tribunal on 09.04.2016 is hereby vacated. Post the O.A. on 30.05.2016.”

¶48

It is aggrieved by Ext.P4 order passed by the Tribunal the petitioner is before this Court in this Original Petition.

¶49

We heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Standing Counsel for the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan representing the respondents.

¶50

O.P.(CAT).No.175 of 2016

¶51

¶52

During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has already made Annexure-MA1 application before the 3^rd respondent, namely, the Deputy Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, Regional Office, Ernakulam for voluntary retirement and that the said respondent may be directed to take a decision on that request. Then the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents would point out that the 3^rd respondent has already rejected the said application for voluntary retirement, since the petitioner had already been relieved from Kendriya Vidyalaya-I, Calicut on 25.5.2016 and her service records have already been transferred to the Deputy Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, Regional Office, Bangalore. Therefore, after reporting for duty at Kendriya Vidyalaya, Kodagu she has to make a proper application before the Deputy Commissioner at the Regional Office, Bangalore.

¶53

O.P.(CAT).No.175 of 2016

¶54

¶55

As we have already noticed the challenge made in this Original Petition is against Ext.P4 order passed by the Tribunal by which interim order granted on 19.4.2016 has been vacated. The reasoning of the Tribunal in Ext.P4 order in order to vacate the order of stay granted on 19.4.2016 cannot be termed either perverse or patently illegal, warranting interference in this O.P. Since O.A.No.348/2016 is still pending consideration before the Tribunal, it is for the petitioner to approach the Tribunal for appropriate reliefs on her request for voluntary retirement from service. Leaving open that right of the petitioner, this Original Petition is closed.

¶56

We make it clear that, we have not expressed anything on the merits of the rival contentions.

¶57

Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE

¶58

Sd/- ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE

¶59

skj

¶60

True copy

¶61

P.A to Judge

M.Renuka Sashi v. the Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyala Sangathan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Renuka Sashi v. the Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyala Sangathan

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

Neesha M.N Vs Mini T.B

Ramanathan N. Vs the State of Kerala

R.Jalajakumari Vs State of Kerala

Union of India Vs Defence Canteen Civil Employees Assn.

K Sathyan Vs Inspector of Posts

District Labour Officer & Assessment Off Vs K.K.Raji & Others