Sri Abani Mohan Biswas vs Union Of India & Ors.

Ms. Urmita Datta (Sen), Judicial Member:

In accordance with the order of the Hon'ble Chairman, Central Administrative Tribunal, dated 10.09.2021 issued under Sub-Section (6) of Section 5 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, this matter can be taken up by a Bench consisting of a single Member. Accordingly, this matter is taken up for disposal by this Single Bench.

I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the applicant. None appears for the official respondents, hence I invoke Rule 16(1) of CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987 and proceed to pass Orders.

The applicant has filed this O.A. under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 praying for the following relief:-

The facts of the case in the nutshell is that the applicant was initially provisionally appointed as EDMC, Bajitpur, EDBO pursuant to an Office Order dated 24.01.1984 issued by the Sub Divisional Inspector of Post Office and was advised to attend the house of Shri Naskar Chandra Mondal, Vill: Bajitpur, P.O. : Karimpur, BPM, Bajitpur, EDPO on 31.01.1984. Thereafter, the Sub-Divisional Inspector of Post, Tehatta Sub Division issued an Order dated 20.02.1984 intimating the applicant that he was provisionally appointed to the post of EDMC at Bajitpur, EDBO on account with Karimpur Sub-Office which was newly created. Further, it was mentioned, that it was not possible to make regular appointment to the said post immediately and he was paid a monthly allowance of Rs. 146/- only and it was also made clear that the provisional appointment shall continue till such regular appointment is made.

According to the applicant, the terms and conditions of engagement of Sevok are as under:-

That, as per GDS (Conduct & Engagement) Rules, 2011 under Rule 5 Sub Rule 3.2 since a GDS is a part time employee, a candidate apply for the post of any category of GDS will have to supplement his income from other employment so as to have an adequate means of livelihood to support himself and his family and the applicant has already submitted a certificate to that effect that he has his own personal business to supplement the additional income for maintaining his family.

The applicant further states that as per method of recruitment of Rule 27 transfer of ED agents from one post to another where it is clearly stipulated that ED agents are not liable or entitled for transfer from one post to another. However, there are instances where ED Agents have been transferred from one post to another on his own request, they are to resign from their post and a fresh appointment Order is issued against new post in such cases.

According to the applicant, though he was appointed in the year 1984 but at that point of time there was no provision to transfer him from one unit to another unit and/or transfer from one post to another post. The applicant would rely upon the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment which clearly stipulates that the authority have no right to change the condition of service of an employee in any manner whatsoever. However, the Inspector of Posts, Tehatta Sub-Division issued an attachment Order dated 06.08.2024 directing the applicant to take charge of GDS MD, Natna, Patabuka Branch Office from 14.08.2024 but the applicant is currently continuing in his present working place as ABPM (MC), Bajitpur Branch Office. In the meantime, the authorities had directed the applicant to deliver the mails from house to which, which is not possible for him at the age of 62 years since he is on the verge of retirement.

Being aggrieved, he preferred a representation dated 09.08.2024 before the Respondent No. 06 requesting him to cancel the attachment Order on the ground of his illness and also taking into consideration the fact that it would be impossible for him to run his personal business. The authority concerned, however, did not consider his representation and had telephonically directed him that his representation may not be considered. Thus, the applicant had no other option but to approach this Tribunal.

The respondents have filed their reply wherein they have contended that at present the GDSs are governed by GDS (C&E) Rules, 2020 which came into effect on 14.02.2020 superseding the earlier rules of 2011 wherein Clause No. 3-A sub clause No. (iv) clearly indicates that “A Sevak can be transferred from one post/unit to another post/unit in public interest/administrative/vigilance ground.”

The applicant has been transferred temporarily to Natna Patabuka BO as GDS MD to fill the vacuum created due to retirement of Sri Naresh Chandra Pramanik, GDSMD of Natna Patabuka BO to avoid any damage to public service is an Order issued under public interest ab initio.

The representation of the applicant regarding prayer for cancellation of Arrangement Order dated 06.08.2024 was received by the Inspector of Post Office, Tehatta Sub Division on 10.08.2024 and the same is under consideration of the authority. The respondents claim that the transfer of the applicant is nothing but has been done pursuant to clause No. 3-A sub clause No. (iv) and is only a temporary arrangement.

The applicant has filed rejoinder wherein he has submitted that any subsequent Recruitment Rules may not change the condition of service, which is not permissible as per law. The applicant was transferred from Bajitpur BO to Natna Patabuka BO to fill up the vacuum created due to retirement of Sri Naresh Chandra Pramanik but the post has already been filled up by posting another person. Apart from this, mostly the averments made in the O.A. are reiterated.

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the applicant. None for the official respondents. Hence, Rule 16(1) of CAT (Procedure) Rules is invoked and I proceed to pass Order.

It is seen that the impugned Order dated 06.08.2024 is a mere arrangement Order and not a transfer Order and the applicant has also submitted that a person has already joined in his place in the said post, hence the arrangement Order has become infructuous. Therefore, the respondents are directed to allow the applicant to work in his present place of posting.

The O.A. is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no Order as to costs.