Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 441 (MP)

Sunil Kumar Shrivastava v. Union of India

2011-04-07

K.K.LAHOTI, SUSHMA SHRIVASTAVA

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. Looking to the controversy involved in this case, learned Counsel for the parties submitted that this matter may be heard finally. 2. In view of the aforesaid, this matter is heard finally. 3. Petitioner is challenging the order dated 17.2.2010, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench in O.A. No. 95 of 2010, by which the original application filed by the Petitioner assailing the transfer order of the Petitioner (Annexure P-2) was dismissed. 4. The facts of the case are that the Petitioner, who was working as T.I. (M) was transferred from Jabalpur to Sagar. This order was assailed by the Petitioner on the ground that the Petitioner, who has been transferred earlier from Bhavnagar to Jabalpur made a specific option that he shall work at Jabalpur Headquarter in the same capacity and in this regard, an option was asked from the Petitioner and on the aforesaid option, Petitioner had accepted the transfer from Bhavnagar to Jabalpur. Now, he cannot be transferred from Jabalpur to Sagar. The matter was considered by the Tribunal by the impugned order and the Tribunal found that the representation against the aforesaid transfer order dated 09.02.2010 was still pending before the Respondents and without making any comments on the merits of the case, the Tribunal directed the Respondents to decide the representation within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of order passed by the Tribunal. This order is under challenge in this petition. 5. Before this court, the aforesaid contentions were reiterated by learned Counsel for the Petitioner. It was submitted by him that the Petitioner was transferred with a specific option and he cannot be transferred from Jabalpur to Sagar by the impugned order. 6. Shri Ruprah, learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted that this controversy requires factual ascertainment from the record and the Tribunal has rightly directed the Respondents to decide the representation of the Petitioner after considering the factual position. 7. Shri Singh, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner has no objection, if the representation of the Petitioner is decided, but the Respondent be directed to decide the representation by a speaking order after considering the factual position. It is also submitted that till the representation is decided, Petitioner may be permitted to continue at Jabalpur. 8. 7. Shri Singh, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner has no objection, if the representation of the Petitioner is decided, but the Respondent be directed to decide the representation by a speaking order after considering the factual position. It is also submitted that till the representation is decided, Petitioner may be permitted to continue at Jabalpur. 8. The aforesaid contention is not opposed by Shri Ruprah, learned Counsel for the Respondents. 9. In view of the aforesaid, we finally disposed of the matter with the following directions: (1) Respondent No. 3, before whom representation (Annexure P-9) is pending is directed to decide the representation expeditiously, as far as possible, within a period of 30 days from the date of communication of this order. (2) While considering the representation of the Petitioner, Respondent No. 3 shall ascertain the factual position in terms of the transfer of the Petitioner and all other materials necessary for deciding the representation and shall pass a speaking order in this regard. (3) The aforesaid order shall be communicated forthwith to the Petitioner. (4) For a period of 30 days, or till the representation is decided by Respondent No. 3, ad-interim writ issued by this Court dated 25.02.2010 to continue. (5) It is made clear that this Court has not decided the controversy on merits and Respondent No. 3 shall be free to deal and decide the matter in accordance with law. 10. C.C. as per rules.