K. Muthukumar, Member (A). - (1.) In this application, the applicant has prayed for setting aside the impugned order dated 31st May, 1994 passed by the respondent No. 2 transferring the applicant from Kanpur to the Central Office of the C P. W. D. in Delhi (Annexure A-1) and for issuing suitable direction to the respondents to allow the applicant to remain on the said post at Kanpur prior to this transfer order.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are as follows. The applicant as Superintending Engineer in C.P.W.D. is posted as Superintending Engineer (Valuation) in Income Tax Department at Kanpur. He has been working in the said post from 10th May, 1991 and has completed three years of service in this post. By the order of the respondent No. 2 dated 31st May, 1991 (Annexure A-1) the applicant was transferred from Kanpur to Delhi and was directed to report for duty to the Central Office Delhi for further posting in Delhi. By the same order Shri D. S. Bhatia was transferred from Chandigarh to join the applicant's post at Kanpur. An application was moved for impleadment of Shri Bhatia as respondent No. 4. This tribunal issue an interim-order on 14-6-1994 whereby, the respondents were directed to file counter-affidavit within 4 weeks and in the meantime they were directed not to coerce the applicant to make over charge till 17th June, 1994 if he had not already made over the same. over same. The applicant has averred that on the basis of the policy of Government the transfer order is illegal and contrary to the policy of the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, P. C. and Pensions and contained in Department of Personnel and Training circular dated 3-4-1986 (Annexure A-5) and C.P.W. D. circular dated 13/18-3-1987 (Annexure A-3), according to which and as per the policy of posting of husband and wife be at the same station, the officer concerned should be given the option either to stay at the same station for one more year beyond his normal tenure or to avail of the preference of one year in returning back to the station after being transferred out. As per the C.P.W.D. Manual, the normal tenure of Superintendent Engineer at a station is 3-4 years and therefore his transfer order before completion of the tenure was illegal and arbitrary. Secondly, the respondent No. 2. has not taken into account his representation dated 9th March, 1994 requesting for choice of posting giving Kanpur as first option for one years beyond normal tenure in accordance with D. C. Works Office Memorandum dated 18th March, 1987 as he and his wife are serving under Government of India at the same station. The application has also averred that the impugned transfer order was passed without considering the above facts and that he has not given the change of the post at Kanpur till date.
(3.) Learned counsel for the respondents initially filed a short counter affidavit on 16th June, 1994 before this Tribunal informing the Tribunal that the deponent namely Shri Bhatia has been transferred and posted in place of the petitioner and that he has assumed the charge of new posting on 8th June, 1994 as per the photostat copy of the taking over charge (Annexure CA-1). The counsel for the respondents sought time for filing counter-affidavit and was allowed 3 weeks time to file the same. Learned counsel for the respondents also filed an application for vacation of the interim order issued by this Tribunal which was opposed by the applicant. While opposing the vacation of the interim order, the applicant has stated that Shri Bhatia had not assumed charge in his place and that the applicant was on casual leave till 14-6-1994 and there was no question of taking over charge by Mr. Bhatia. Besides as per rules the charge certificate alleged to have been signed by the respondent No. 4 for taking over the charge is false. In the rejoinder affidavit, the applicant raised objection to the impleadment of Shri Bhatia as respondent.;