Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 421 (HP)

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Darshan Lal

2016-04-06

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR, TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2016
JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. Subject matter of this writ petition is the order, dated 7th September, 2015, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh, (for short, the Tribunal), in OA No.063/00086/2015, whereby the Original Applicant (respondent No.1 herein) was ordered to be transferred to a non-difficult area, instead of difficult area i.e. Noradhar, keeping in view the fact that the Original Applicant was nearing the age of 55 years, (for short, the impugned order). 2. During the course of hearing, Mr. Rajiv Jiwan, the learned counsel for the petitioners, strenuously argued that at the time of transferring respondent No.1 Darshan Lal, he was below 55 years of age and that the transfer policy, occupying the field, postulates that an employee who has attained the age of 55 years would not be posted in a tenure station. Therefore, it was submitted that since respondent No.1 had not crossed the age of 55 years on the day when the transfer order was made, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, on the face of it, is not sustainable in the eyes of law and deserves to be set aside. 3. After going through the pleadings and the order impugned before us, we are of the opinion that there is substance in the argument advanced by Mr. Jiwan for the simple reason that at the time of making the transfer order, respondent No.1 had not crossed the age of 55 years and the policy, as submitted by Mr. Jiwan, provides that posting of employees, in tenure stations, above the age of 55 years, as on 31st March of a calendar year, would be avoided. 4. Faced with the above situation, Mr. I.D. Bali, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for respondent No.1 Darshan Lal submitted that now the said respondent has crossed the age of 55 years and, therefore, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is not required to be interfered with. 5. Keeping in view the facts of the case, the Original Applicant (respondent No.1 herein) was not falling within the exception of 55 years, as discussed hereinabove, and therefore, the impugned order, to that effect, needs to be set aside. However, by now he has crossed the age of 55 years and falls within the said exception. 6. Having glance of the above, the final operation of the impugned order is maintained for the reasons given hereinabove. However, by now he has crossed the age of 55 years and falls within the said exception. 6. Having glance of the above, the final operation of the impugned order is maintained for the reasons given hereinabove. However, it is made clear that it should not be treated as precedent. 7. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly, so also the pending CMPs, if any. Interim directions, if any, stand vacated.