Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench(2021) 08 CAT CK 0012

Narendra Singh vs Union Of India & Others

Central Administrative Tribunal · Decided on 11 August 2021

HON’BLE JUDGES
Vijay Lakshmi, Member (J) · Tarun Shridhar, Member (A)
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Original Application No. 330, 580 Of 2021

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

18 paragraphs · 355 words

Tarun Sridhar, Member (A)

1.

Shri Sudhir Kumar Tripathi, ld. counsel for the applicant and Shri Rajesh Tiwari, ld. counsel for the respondents are present.

2.

The applicant is a Pharmacist (Ayurvedic) working at Employees State Insurance Corporation (in short ESIC) MH Indore. He was

transferred/diverted from ESIC MH Indore to work in ESIC Hospital Varanasi and he is working in the establishment for last three years on an order

which is said to be a ""Diversion"" order. All his pay and other allowances are being paid from Indore. Vide order dated 19.07.2021 the earlier order of

diversion has been cancelled which means that the applicant will now have to go back to his original establishment in Indore from where he is drawing

all his service benefits.

3.

Learned counsel for the applicant argues that application of the applicant for inter-regional transfer is already pending before the respondents and

hence he prays for stay on the cancellation of the diversion order dated 19.07.2021 till the decision is taken on his Inter Regional Transfer application.

He further draws our attention to the family circumstances of the applicant to pray for the relief of cancellation of the diversion order and a direction

to be issued to post him permanently to Varanasi. It is not for us to direct the respondents as to where the applicant be posted, this being the sole

prerogative of the authorities.

4.

We find that the diversion order itself is beyond the pale of normal government policy. If a government employee is working in a particular

establishment drawing his pay and allowances, he is expected to work there although in special or unique circumstances he could be admittedly

assigned temporarily to some other establishment. However, we find that in the instant case, he has availed an opportunity to work for a period of

more than three years at Varanasi and there is no justification or legal claim that he should be posted in Varanasi. Therefore, this original application is

dismissed at the admission stage with liberty to the applicant to file an appropriate representation before the respondents to consider his request for

transfer.