Dismissed

The Union Of India and Ors. v. Rajiv Ranjan Prasad

Patna HC8 Aug 2016CWJC/6284/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court disposed of a writ application challenging a CAT order allowing a transfer request. The Court held that Gramin Dak Sevaks are not protected under Article 311 and cannot seek transfer via Tribunal; petitioners must consider the claim per departmental rules.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed with liberty to petitioners to consider the claim for transfer in accordance with Rules and instructions.

The Union Of India and Ors. Vs Rajiv Ranjan… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6284 of 2016

¶3

=========================================================== 1. The Union of India through the D.G. cum Secretary, Department of Post, Dak Bhawan, New Delhi

¶4

The Chief Postmaster General, Bihar Circle, Patna

¶5

The Assistant Director (Staff), O/o the Chief Postmaster General, Bihar Circle, Patna

¶6

The Post Master General, Northern Region, Muzaffarpur

¶7

The Superintendent of Post Offices, East Champaran Division, Motihari

¶8

The Inspector of Posts, East Sub Division, Motihari

¶9

.... .... Respondents/Petitioners

¶10

Versus

¶11

Rajiv Ranjan Prasad, Son of Late Harendra Prasad, resident of village & PO Bagahi, P.S.- Sugauli, District- East Champaran (Motihari)

¶12

.... .... Petitioner/Respondent

¶13

=========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioners : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, ASG For the U.O.I. : Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Prasad, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr.

¶14

=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA and

¶15

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT

¶16

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA) Date: 08-08-2016

¶17

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶18

The challenge in the present writ application is to an

¶19

order dated 12.08.2015 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna (for short “the Tribunal”) in O.A. No. 654 of 2013, whereby an Original Application filed by the respondent herein (hereinafter referred to as “the applicant”) against the rejection of his request for transfer was allowed.

¶20

Patna High Court CWJC No.6284 of 2016 dt.08-08-2016

¶21

2/2

¶22

The Tribunal directed the present petitioners to consider the request of the applicant for limited transfer in the light of observations made in the order.

¶23

The applicant before the Tribunal is Gramin Dak Sevak (GDS) but his service is not protected by the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. The transfer of such Gramin Dak Sevak is in the administrative exigencies and no person can claim transfer as a matter of right.

¶24

Since the request of the applicant for transfer has been rejected, we find that the applicant cannot seek transfer through the process of the Tribunal.

¶25

In view thereof, we dispose of the present writ application with liberty to the petitioners to consider the claim of the applicant for transfer in accordance with Rules and instructions and also the administrative exigencies of the Department.

¶26

(Hemant Gupta, J)

¶27

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J)

¶28

Narendra/-

¶29

AFR/NAFR	NAFR
CAVDATE	N.A.
Uploading Date	12.08.2016
Transmission Date

The Union Of India and Ors. v. Rajiv Ranjan Prasad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Union Of India and Ors. v. Rajiv Ranjan Prasad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sandeep Jain Through Manager Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Deo Nath Singh Vs The Bihar State Power Holding Company Limited and Ors.

Commissioner Of Cumstoms, Patna Vs M/s Katyal Metal Agencies, 9611/13 Sadar Thana Road Paharganj, New Delhi-55

M/s S. K. Nasiruddin Biri Merchants Pvt. Ltd. Vs Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner and Anr.

The Union Of India and Ors. Vs Sumitra Nandan Prasad

Ram Sundar Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.