Dismissed the writ petition challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal's order rejecting the petitioner's claim to treat her period of non-joining as period spent on duty and regarding a request for transfer to a specific station.
Writ petition dismissed as devoid of merit; plea for modification of transfer order not entertained.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[2024:RJ-JD:3707-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1067/2024
Rajni Kardam W/o Shri Lalta Prasad, Aged About 49 Years, R/o Plot No. 5, Khasra No. 58, Roop Nagar, Banar Road, Nandari Jodhpur, (Raj.) (Posted As Pgt Computer Science At Kendriya Vidyalaya, Pokhran)
----Petitioner
Versus
-----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jog Singh Bhati
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI
Order
24/01/2024
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 08.12.2023 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur (for short ‘the Tribunal’), whereby the original application filed by the petitioner challenging the action of the respondents of not treating her period of non-joining as period spent on duty, has been rejected.
[2024:RJ-JD:3707-DB]
(2 of 4)
The petitioner was working on the post of Teacher (Computer Science) in Kendriya Vidhyalaya No.1, Army, Jodhpur and she was transferred to Kendriya Vidhyalaya, STPS Suratgarh vide order dated 04.08.2023. The petitioner approached the Tribunal by way of filing OA and challenged the validity of the transfer order dated 04.08.2023, however during pendency of the OA before the Tribunal, the petitioner was relieved and was directed to join at Kendriya Vidhyalaya, STPS Suratgarh. The OA filed by the petitioner came to be disposed of by the Tribunal vide order dated 11.08.2023 with liberty to her to apply directly to the competent respondent authority ventilating her grievances and articulating her respective prayer with regard to transfer at the place of her choice.
At the insistence of the petitioner, the Tribunal has further ordered that the respondent authorities shall not pass any order prejudicial to the petitioner to join at the place of posting till disposal of her representation.
The representation filed by the petitioner came to be disposed of by the respondent authorities vide order dated 27/30.10.2023 and the petitioner was transferred to Kendriya Vidyalaya, Pokhran and simultaneously she was asked to submit a leave application to treat the period of her absence from duty as period spent on duty.
Being aggrieved with the same, the petitioner approached the Tribunal by way of filing another OA, which came to be dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 08.12.2023. The Tribunal is of the view that the period which the petitioner did not work cannot be treated as the period spent on duty. It is observed
[2024:RJ-JD:3707-DB]
(3 of 4)
by the Tribunal that the petitioner herself did not join her duties at her respective place of posting and awaited for the decision on her representation and, therefore, she cannot claim that the said period may be treated as the period spent on duty.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Tribunal has erred in observing that the period from which the petitioner has not joined her duties cannot be treated as the period spent on duty because as per the order passed by the Tribunal in the earlier OA, she was protected from joining at the new place of posting and, in such circumstances, the respondents cannot compel her to file leave application for treating the period of absence from duty.
We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record.
Though, it is true that the Tribunal while deciding the earlier OA filed by the petitioner has observed that the respondents shall not compel her to join at the new place of posting till disposal of her representation, but the fact remains that prior to passing of the order by the Tribunal, the petitioner was already relieved. Admittedly, the petitioner did not work at the new place of posting after relieving and, in such circumstances, we don’t find any illegality in the impugned order dated 08.12.2023 passed by the Tribunal.
In the writ petition, the petitioner has also prayed that the respondents may be directed to issue modification of the transfer order to the choice station of the petitioner i.e. Delhi, however, the said plea also cannot be entertained as no such prayer was claimed by the petitioner before the Tribunal.
(4 of 4)
[2024:RJ-JD:3707-DB]
In view of the above discussion, this writ petition being
devoid of merit is hereby dismissed.
(RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI),J
(VIJAY BISHNOI),J
40-Arun/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Tribunal erred in not treating the petitioner's period of non-joining as period spent on duty.
Whether the High Court can entertain a plea for modification of transfer order to a new station not raised before the Tribunal.
Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to condone the delay in filing the present writ petition.
Rajni Kardam W/o Shri Lalta Prasad
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan
VIJAY BISHNOI
RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
