Dismissed

M.Vijayan v. Union of India

Kerala HC17 Jan 2020OP (CAT)/4332/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of an application in the nature of an Original Petition challenging a Tribunal Order denying transfer back from Thrissur to home station in Thiruvananthapuram. The Court held that the applicant's lifestyle ailments did not require specialized treatment only available in Thiruvananthapuram.

What did the court decide?

The Original Petition was dismissed in limine with no interference with the Tribunal order.

M.Vijayan Vs Union of India — Pension and Retirement Benefits | 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

FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 20TH POUSHA, 1941

¶7

OP (CAT).No.12 OF 2020

¶8

OA 461/2019 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH

¶9

PETITIONER/APPLICANT

¶10

SURESH C., AGED 58 YEARS S/O. LAKSHMIKUTTY, HOUSE NO. 81, SUMANAM, V.V. NAGAR, NCC ROAD, PEROORKADA P O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-05 (SUPERVISOR ES II WING,

¶11

O/O. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL( E & RSA), KERALA, BRANCH OFFICE, THRISSUR)

¶12

BY ADVS. SRI.ALEXANDER JOSEPH SMT.TERESA C. JOSEPH SMT.AKHILASREE BHASKARAN

¶13

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶14

1 THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (E & RSA), KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶15

2 THE DEPUTY ACCOUNTANT GENERAL O/o.THE PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL( E & RSA), KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶16

3 THE DEPUTY ACCOUNTANT GENERAL(ES II WING) OFFICE OF THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL( E & RSA), KERALA, BRANCH OFFICE THRISSUR-685584.

¶17

OTHER PRESENT:

¶18

SRI.K.I.MAYANKUTTY MATHER, SR.GP SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH

¶19

THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

OP(CAT).12/2020

JUDGMENT

Dated : 10^th January 2020

¶24

K.Vinod Chandran, J.

¶25

1.The applicant before the Tribunal sought transfer back to Thiruvananthapuram from Thrissur, on compassionate grounds.

¶26

2.The applicant had been continuing at Thiruvananthapuram, his home station, since 1981. He was transferred to Thrissur in the year 2016. He sought for a transfer back to Thiruvananthapuram on the ground of several medical ailments. The ailments of the petitioner, referred in Annexure-A2 to A4 documents produced in the O.A, are all lifestyle diseases; however, capable of putting the patient to considerable discomforts. When the petitioner sought for transfer back to Thiruvananthapuram, the first respondent refused to

¶27

¶28

OP(CAT).12/2020

¶29

consider; but however transferred the petitioner from Field Audit Wing to ES-II Head Quarters so as to enable him to have lighter duties. The transfer to Thiruvananthapuram in the year 2016 is also said to be in accordance with the transfer policy.

¶30

3.The learned counsel appearing for the applicant had first contended that, the medical condition of the applicant requires him to be transferred back to Thiruvananthapuram where he was undergoing treatment. It is also contended that there were malafides involved in the transfer of the applicant and reference is made to Ext.P3, a proceeding initiated against the Department upto the Central Information Commission. We refuse to consider the

¶31

plea of malafides which is asserted to the departmental malafides by the applicant's counsel, essentially noticing that this was never urged before the Tribunal. Now the plea taken before this

¶32

¶33

OP(CAT).12/2020

¶34

Court in the Original Petition challenging the order of the Tribunal cannot be permitted.

¶35

4.As we noticed at the outset, the ailments of the applicant are lifestyle diseases which though require continuous medication, we do not find any specialized treatment to be necessary, that too available only in Thiruvananthapuram. The case of the applicant has been sympathetically considered by the Department and he has been given light duty of Cataloger of departmental documents.

¶36

5.It was also submitted by the Department before the Tribunal that about 80% of the officials in the supervisory cadres are involved in audit with field duties and it is hence, the applicant has been given a comfortable posting within the Head Quarters without any field duties assigned. It is also a compelling circumstance that the applicant

¶37

OP(CAT).12/2020

¶38

had been continuing all through his service in Thiruvananthapuram, his home station, from 1981 onwards. In such circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal.

¶39

Original Petition dismissed in limine.

¶40

K.VINOD CHANDRAN Judge

V.G.ARUN

Mrcs/10.1.

OP(CAT).12/2020

APPENDIX

EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21.11.2019 IN OA NO. 461/2019 OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ERNAKULAM BENCH.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE OA NO.461/2019 DATED 27.06.2019 BEFORE THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH.
ANNEXURE A1	TRUE COPY OF THE TRANSFER ORDER DATED 18.10.2016 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
ANNEXUREA A7	TRUE COPY OF THE TRANSFER ORDER DATED 05.04.2019 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE A2	TRUE COPY OF THE OUT PATIENT RECORD DATED 26.04.2019 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT MEDICAL COLLEGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
ANNEXURE A2(A)	READABLE TYPED COPY OF THE ANNEXURE A2.
ANNEXURE A3	TRUE COPY OF THE OUT PATIENT TICKET NO.10810 ISSUED BY THE REGIONAL INSTITUTE OF OPHTHALMOLOGY.
ANNEXURE A3(A)	READABLE TYPED COPY OF THE ANNEXURE A3.
ANNEXURE A4	TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE CHAIRMAN MEDICAL BOARD, GENERAL HOSPITAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
ANNEXURE A4(A)	READABLE TYPED COPY OF THE ANNEXURE A4.
ANNEXURE A5	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 28.10.2016 OF THE APPLICANT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE A6	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 17.03.2017 OF THE APPLICANT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE A8	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 31.05.2019 OF THE APPLICANT TO THE 1ST

OP(CAT).12/2020

RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 07.12.2015 OF THE CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT DATED 03.09.2019 OF THE RESPONDENTS TO 3 BEFORE THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH.
ANNEXURE R1	TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE TRANSFER BOARD AND GUIDELINES OF TRANSFER POLICY.
ANNEXURE R2	TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF TRANSFER OF OFFICIALS NECESSITATING HEAD QUARTERS CHANGE IN OCTOBER-2016.
ANNEXURE R3	TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE OFFICE OF THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL(ERSA)
ANNEXURE R4	TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF THE APPLICANT PLACED FOR MEDICAL REIMBURSEMENT CLAIM FROM MARCH 2018 TO JUNE 2019.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE M.A NO.882/2019 IN IA 462/2019 OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH.
ANNEXURE A9	TRUE COPY OF THE TRANSFER POLICY NO. AU/ADMN/ERSA/TRANSFER POLICY/2017-18 DATED 4.12.2017 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE A10	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 1.03.2017 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 06/10/2015 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

M.Vijayan v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Vijayan v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C.Thampu Vs S.K.Anandakrishnan

Mathews Paul.K, Vs the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited

Kerala Public Service Commission Vs Ramyamol.P.C

State of Kerala Vs a. Batheruneza

Dr.Smitha Suresh Vs State of Kerala

Sudha T.K. Vs the Superintendent