Gajendra Singh Parihar Son Of H.s. Parihar v. The Union Of India

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 36/2021 Gajendra Singh Parihar Son Of H.S. Parihar, Aged About 57Years, Resident Of A-190, Mahesh Nagar, Jaipur, Presently PostedAs Income Tax Officer, Ward No. 6(3), Jaipur Group (B) ----Petitioner Versus 1. The Union Of India, Through Its Secretary, Ministry OfFinance, Department Of Revenue, Cdbt North Block,Delhi-110001.Finance, Department Of Revenue, Cdbt North Block,Delhi-110001. 2. The Principal Chief Commissioner, Income Tax, Jaipur,Rajasthan, New Central Revenue Building, BhagwandasRoad, Jaipur- Rajasthan 302005.Rajasthan, New Central Revenue Building, BhagwandasRoad, Jaipur- Rajasthan 302005. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sandeep Sharma Advocate through Video Conferencing. HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA KUMAR SONGARA Judgment / Order 05/01/2021 Petitioner has filed the petition under Article 227 of theConstitution of India challenging the order dated 24.12.2020passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, whereby, originalapplication moved by the petitioner challenging his transfer orderdated 07.10.2020, was dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that thepetitioner is due to retire within three years. As per policy framedby the respondents relating to transfers, petitioner was liable to beaccommodated on one of the choice station submitted by him.Transfer order has been passed in violation of the transfer policy. Parents of the petitioner are old and are suffering from variousailments. Petitioner is posted as Income Tax Officer, Group ‘B’ Post. Itis the case of the petitioner that he was required to be transferredto a place of his choice in terms of the Annual General TransferPolicy. Para/Clause 3 of the policy Annexure-R/1 reads as under:- “3. Application for Transfer/Stay:- 3.1 All theofficers shall be required to submit Applicationfor Transfer/Stay in prescribed format before the AGT. 3.2 The officer shall be required to give his/her three“Choice stations” in order of his preference. The first choiceshall be the preferred place of posting. In case an officerhas chosen Category ‘D’ or ‘E’ station as one of his/herchoice then the other two choices shall be from theCategory ‘A’, ‘B’ or ‘C’ stations. 3.3 If an officer fails to submit his application forTransfer/Stay in prescribed format before the due date, itshall be presumed that the officer is having open choice forall the stations. 3.4 It shall be the endeavour of the Local PlacementCommittee to accommodate the officer at his first choicestation. 3.5 If an officer cannot be accommodated at his first choicestation, then it shall be the endeavour of the LocalPlacement Committee to accommodate him/her at one ofhis two choice stations subject to availability of thevacancies and administrative convenience. In case, it is notfeasible to accommodate him/her at his choice stations dueto non-availability of vacancies, he/she shall beaccommodated to a nearer station to his/her choicestations. A perusal of the above para/clause reveals that everyendeavour is to be made for placement of the officer at his placeof choice station. Vide the impugned order dated 07.10.2020, petitioner hasbeen transferred from Jaipur to Jodhpur. It was the case of the respondents in their reply before theTribunal that the petitioner was due for transfer as he hadcompleted his normal tenure of four years and nine months as on31.03.2020. Petitioner had been transferred from Jaipur toJodhpur as per the transfer policy and taking into considerationthe vacancy position and acute shortage of officers at Jodhpur andon account of administrative requirement. A perusal of the above para/clause reveals that everyendeavour is to be made for placement of the officer at his placeof choice station. Vide the impugned order dated 07.10.2020, petitioner hasbeen transferred from Jaipur to Jodhpur. It was the case of the respondents in their reply before theTribunal that the petitioner was due for transfer as he hadcompleted his normal tenure of four years and nine months as on31.03.2020. Petitioner had been transferred from Jaipur toJodhpur as per the transfer policy and taking into considerationthe vacancy position and acute shortage of officers at Jodhpur andon account of administrative requirement. Thus, as per the respondents, the transfer of the petitionerhad been effected from Jaipur to Jodhpur on administrativeground and after he had completed his normal tenure at Jaipur. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point outanything from record to establish that the transfer of thepetitioner had been effected by the respondents on account ofmala-fide reasons. Since the petitioner had been transferred onadministrative grounds, learned Tribunal rightly dismissed theoriginal application filed by the petitioner challenging his transferorder. No ground for interference is made out. Dismissed. (CHANDRA KUMAR SONGARA),J (SABINA),J