Dismissed

M.G.Sreekumar v. the Director General

Kerala HC9 Jan 2020OP (CAT)/127/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed an original petition challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal's rejection of a request for invalidation of a departmental transfer. The court upheld the Tribunal's finding that the transfer was valid, competent, and that personal hardships and workload contentions were insufficient grounds for interference without evidence of malice.

What did the court decide?

The Original Petition (CAT) No.127 of 2019 is dismissed with no order as to costs.

M.G.Sreekumar Vs the Director General — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶6

THURSDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 19TH POUSHA, 1941

¶7

O.P(CAT).No.127 OF 2019

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER IN O.A.1062/2017 DATED 08-03-2019 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH

¶9

PETITIONER/ APPLICANT:

¶10

M.G.SREEKUMAR., AGED 49 YEARS, S/O. C.P. GOVINDAN NAIR, ASSISTANT ENGINEER (CIVIL) (PERSONAL-IN-SITU) CIVIL CONSTRUCTIONS WING, ALL INDIA RADIO AND TELEVISION, MADURAI SUB-DIVISION, TAMIL NADU-625 002, PERMANENT ADDRRESS: “HARISREE”, BYLANE-8, NETAJI ROAD, ALUVA 683 101, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADVS. SRI.T.C.GOVINDA SWAMY SMT.KALA T.GOPI SRI.B.NAMADEVA PRABHU.

¶12

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶13

1 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, ALL INDIA RADIO, NEW DELHI - 110 001.

¶14

2 THE CHIEF ENGINEER (CIVIL), CIVIL CONSTRUCTION WING, ALL INDIA RADIO, NEW DELHI 110 003.

¶15

3 THE SUPERINTENDING SURVEYOR OF WORKS-1, CIVIL CONSTRUCTION WING, ALL INDIA RADIO, NEW DELHI 110 003.

¶16

4 THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, CIVIL CONSTRUCTION WING, ALL INDIA RADIO, CHENNAI 600 01.

¶17

- 2 -

¶18

OP(CAT) No.127 of 2019

¶19

5 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (CIVIL), CIVIL CONSTRUCTION WING, AIR & TV KAKKANAD, KOCHI 682 037.

¶20

6 SHRI. J. BHAGATH, CHIEF ENGINEER (CIVIL), CIVIL CONSTRUCTION WING, ALL INDIA RADIO, NEW DELHI 110 003.

¶21

7 SHRI. N. RAJU, ASSISTANT ENGINEER (C) (P), [CIVIL CONSTRUCTION WING, DOORDARSAN KENDRA, HPT, RAMESWARAM], NOW WORKING AT: CIVIL CONSTRUCTION WING, DOORDARSAN KENDRA, KUDAPPANAKUNNU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 043.

¶22

R1-R7 BY ADV. SRI.P.R.AJITHKUMAR, CGC.

¶23

THIS OP (CAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

- 3 -

¶25

OP(CAT) No.127 of 2019

¶26

K.Vinod Chandran & V.G.Arun, JJ.

¶27

O.P(CAT) No.127 of 2019-Z

¶28

Dated this the 09^th day of January, 2020

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

K. Vinod Chandran,J:

¶31

The petitioner challenged his transfer to Madurai

¶32

in the O.A., which was rejected. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner raised multifarious grounds against the transfer. It is submitted that the petitioner has two children studying in a school and college and he also has to look after his aged parents. His wife is also employed. The petitioner has been permitted to enrol for Ph.D programme in the Cochin University of Science and Technology, which is mid-way. It is also argued that the fact that there are four transfers within a short span of five years indicates clear malice and ill will of the Departmental officers.

¶33

2. At the outset, we do not intend to look into the allegation of malice and ill will especially since the four transfers asserted by the petitioner were thwarted by appropriate litigations. The petitioner has joined the service of the respondent on 31.01.1990 at Arunachal Pradesh. After three years in the 'hard station' posting, the petitioner was transferred to Kerala and he joined on

¶34

OP(CAT) No.127 of 2019 - 4 -

¶35

03.09.1992. It was in the year 2015 he was first transferred from Kochi to Port Blair. The petitioner challenged the same before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which set aside the transfer on the ground that he had already completed his tenure in a 'hard station'. In 2016, he was transferred to Hyderabad Division, which was also challenged before the Tribunal. The Tribunal set aside the transfer on the ground that the order was issued by an authority who did not have the competence to order transfer. Later in the year 2017, the petitioner was transferred to Mehaboob Nagar, which was unsuccessfully challenged before the Tribunal. However, in an Original

¶36

Petition (CAT), it was directed that while effecting transfer the total tenure of a person continuing in Kerala shall be reckoned and not the station seniority and it was also directed that if the petitioner could be accommodated in any suitable vacancy if available in Kerala, the same shall be done.

¶37

3. The present transfer is to Madurai, within the same circle. The petitioner had various contentions with respect to the minimal work in Madurai Division and the heavy workload in Kochi; which were rejected by the Tribunal. It is not for the employee to decide the arrangement of work and we perfectly agree with the

¶38

- 5 -

¶39

OP(CAT) No.127 of 2019

¶40

Tribunal. Insofar as the enrolment in a Ph.D programme, the Tribunal found that the same was permitted by his controlling authority subject to his not compromising his service obligations. We cannot fault the said finding too.

¶41

4. As to the further contention taken of various problems in the family, we cannot but notice that every employee would have certain difficulties and that cannot be the reigning consideration while effecting transfers. As was noticed by the Tribunal, the judgment at Annexure A6 directed consideration of accommodation of the petitioner in any available vacancy within Kerala. The Tribunal found that the post of technical personnel are specialized and it is necessary to ensure that they are posted only in posts where their technical qualification and specialization can be put to use. The direction in Annexure A6 cannot apply for all times and it is not to be interpreted as permitting the petitioner to occupy the first arising vacancy in Kerala. The applicant has been continuing in home station from 1992 and admittedly it is a transferable job. There is no sustainable ground of mala fides raised by the petitioner. The order issued is also by an authority having competence to transfer the employees in the respondent-organization. We do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal.

¶42

- 6 -

¶43

OP(CAT) No.127 of 2019

¶44

Original Petition (CAT) is dismissed with no order

¶45

as to costs.

¶46

Sd/K.VINOD CHANDRAN JUDGE

¶47

Sd/V.G.ARUN JUDGE

¶48

Vku/-

¶49

- 7 -

¶50

OP(CAT) No.127 of 2019

¶51

APPENDIX

¶52

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶53

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 8TH MARCH 2019 IN OA NO. 180/01062/2017 RENDERED BY THE LEARNED TRIBUNAL.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF OA NO. 180/01062/2017 DATED 14TH DECEMBER 2017 ALONG WITH ITS ANNEXURES FILED BEFORE THE LEARNED CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH.
EXHIBIT P2(A1)	A TRUE COPY OF ORDER BEARING NO.SSW- 1/25(56)/2015-VOL.II/1320-1333 DATED 12.12.2017, ISSUED ON BEHALF OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P2(A2)	A TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 15.02.2016 IN OA NO.378/2015 RENDERED BY THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL
EXHIBIT P2(A3)	A TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 31.03.2017 IN OA NO.371/2016 RENDERED BY THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL
EXHIBIT P2(A4)	A TRUE COPY OF ORDER BEARING NO.SSW- 1/25(2)/JE(C)/AE(C)-P/2017/483 DATED 04.05.2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND/6TH RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P2(A5)	A TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 29TH AUGUST 2017 IN OA NO.349/2017 RENDERED BY THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL
EXHIBIT P2(A6)	A TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 14TH SEP 2017 IN OP(CAT) NO.260/2017 RENDERED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT
EXHIBIT P2(A7)	A TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION BEARING NO.EEC/KOCHI/1(27)/2015(S)/286 DATED 10.03.2016, ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P2(A8)	A TRUE COPY OF OFFICE ORDER BEARING NO.51/2017-PPC DATED 03.03.2017, ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE PRASAR BHARATI BROADCASTING CORPORATION
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF REPLY STATEMENT DATED 06 FEB 2018 ALONG WITH ITS ANNEXURES FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 AND 6 IN OA NO. 180/01062/2017.

¶54

- 8 -

¶55

OP(CAT) No.127 of 2019

¶56

EXHIBIT P3(R5A)	TRUE COPY OF THE PROPOSAL MADE BY THE RECOMMENDING AUTHORITY
EXHIBIT P3(R5B)	TRUE COPY OF THE UNDERTAKING DATED 4.3.2013 GIVEN BY THE APPLICANT
EXHIBIT P3(R5C)	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 2.4.2013 GRANTING PERMISSION TO THE APPLICANT
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER DATED 19.2.208 ALONG WITH ITS ANNEXURS FILED BY THE APPLICANT IN OA NO. 180/01062/2017.
EXHIBIT P4(A9)	TRUE COPY OF DG, AIR ORDER NO.F.NO.A- 35018/1/2006-CW-I/62 DATED 11.01.2013
EXHIBIT P4(A10)	TRUE COPY OF DG, AIR ORDER BEARING NO.16/2/2014S-III/976 DATED 30.11.2015
EXHIBIT P4(A11)	TRUE COPY OF DG, AIR ORDER BEARING NO.16/2/2014S-III/1080 DATED 30.12.2015
EXHIBIT P4(A12)	TRUE COPY OF RTI REPLY INDICATING SANCTIONED STRENGTH OF THE AEP DATED 04.05.2017
EXHIBIT P4(A13)	TRUE COPY OF DEPLOYMENT POSITION DATED 05.02.2018
EXHIBIT P4(A14)	TRUE COPY OF ORDER BEARING NO.SE(C)/M/4(89)/2018/42 DATED 11.01.2018
EXHIBIT P4(A15)	TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION FROM 2 RESPONDENT (FILE NO.CE(C)/PA/CCW/2017) DATED 10.02.2017
EXHIBIT P4(A16)	TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT DATED 01.03.2017
EXHIBIT P4(A17)	TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION BEARING NO.SE(C)/M-1(5)A/2017-18/792 DATED 05.12.2017, PROPOSAL FOR TRANSFER
EXHIBIT P4(A18)	TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION FOR APPROVAL OF TRANSFER DATED 12.12.2017 FROM SSW TO CHIEF ENGINEER(C)
EXHIBIT P4(A19)	TRUE COPY OF ON LINE RTI REQUEST FORM BEARING NUMBER DGAIR/R/2017/50064
EXHIBIT P4(A20)	TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY TO THE RTI REQUEST BEARING NUMBER F.NO.08/20/2017-S.I(B) DATED 23.05.2017

¶57

OP(CAT) No.127 of 2019 - 9 -

¶58

EXHIBIT P4(A21) TRUE COPY OF ALL INDIA WORK LOAD ABSTRACT RECEIVED THROUGH RTI

¶59

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF ADDITIONAL REPLY STATEMENT DATED 30TH MAY 2018 ALONG WITH ITS ANNEXURES FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS 1 TO 6 IN OA NO. 180-/01062/2017.

¶60

EXHIBIT P5(R5D) TRUE COPY OF THE DIVISIONWISE DETAILS OF WORK LOAD FOR THE FINANCIAL YEARS 2011-12 TO 2016-17 EXHIBIT P5(R5E) TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF NUMBER OF DOORDARSHAN AND ALL INDIA RADIO INSTALLATIONS

¶61

[TRUE COPY]

M.G.Sreekumar v. the Director General

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.G.Sreekumar v. the Director General

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

Union of India Vs v.T.K.Nayanar

Lency.K.L Vs Sunil John Mathew

The Chief Post Master General, Vs M.K. Balakrishnan

Razeena K.H., Vs State of Kerala

Retnakaran Pillai K Vs State of Kerala

Edgar Mancheai Vs State of Kerala