Ram Kumar Malik vs Union Of India Through

L. Narasimha Reddy, J

1.The applicant is working as Assistant Director (Horticulture) in the Central Public Works Department. Through an office order dated 09.11.2018 he was transferred from the office of DD (Hort.)-V, CPWD, New Delhi, to DD (H), Bhopal. The same is challenged in this OA.

The applicant contends that he is one of the office bearers of the Association of CPWD Horticulture Officers, which was recognized by the Department, and though it was mentioned in office memorandum dated 12.06.2014 that at least two office bearers of a recognized Association shall be exempted from transfer, he was transferred to Bhopal. He further contends that he is due to retire in 2020, and that though an employee is entitled to be posted at his native place or a place of his choice, during the last two years of service, such a benefit was not extended to him.

On behalf of the respondents, counter affidavit is filed. It is stated that the applicant was working in Delhi since 2008, and he was transferred, duly following the relevant guidelines. It is stated that the office memorandum dated 12.06.2014 provides for retention of the Chief Executive or the General Secretary, and one Executive Member, of the Association, but the applicant is neither of them.

We heard Shri R. V. Sinha and Shri Amit Sinha, learned counsel for the applicant, and Shri Hanu Bhaskar, learned counsel for the respondents.

Since the applicant was working at Delhi since 2008, he became due for transfer. It is true that the office memorandum dated 12.06.2014 provides for retention of two office bearers of the recognized Association at the headquarters. Such a facility is, however, available only to the General Secretary or Chief Executive, and one Executive Member, of the Association. The applicant does not hold any of these posts. He was elected as Vice President, and on the retirement of the President of the Association, he is holding that charge also. Therefore, he cannot avail the benefit under the said office memorandum.

One ground that appeals to us is that the applicant is due to retire in the year 2020, and the guidelines framed by the Government provide for posting of an employee at a place of his choice for the last two years of service. Obviously, because this ground was not pressed before the respondents, they did not have an occasion to deal with the same. The applicant has joined the place to which he is transferred. Even now he can make a representation in this behalf.

The OA is accordingly disposed of, leaving it open to the applicant to make a representation, indicating the date of his retirement, requesting that he be posted in terms of the relevant guidelines. As and when such a representation is made, the respondents shall pass appropriate orders within a period of two weeks thereafter. There shall be no order as to costs.