Raj Vir Sharma, Member (J) - (1.) IN this Original Application, applicant Shri Satbir Singh, Assistant Director (Horticulture), Horticulture Division No. VI, CPWD, I.P. Bhawan, New Delhi, has prayed for quashing the Office Order No. 87/2013, dated 23.5.2013, issued by the Director (Administration), Directorate General, Central Public Works Department, transferring him from Delhi to Dehradun, vice Shri Satya Vir Singh, vide Sl. No. 2 of the said Office Order. Brief facts of the applicant's case run thus: The applicant joined the service as Section Officer (Horticulture) on 1.8.1983. He was promoted to the post of Assistant Director (Horticulture) on 31.12.2010. He had worked at various places as and when so posted by the respondents. The O.M. No. 88/2/2004 -EC -III, dated 10.8.2004 (Annexure A -1), issued by respondent no. 2, contains the guidelines for transfer/posting of Assistant Directors (Horticulture). The said O.M. dated 10.8.2004, vide clause 2, prescribes that officers posted in Delhi will generally be transferred to outstation on the basis of the longest stay in Delhi. In the list of longest stayed Assistant Directors (Horticulture) posted in Delhi as on 31.1.2013 (Annexure A -2), the name of the applicant appears at Sl. No. 6. It is the applicant's case that the persons at Sl. Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 of the said list have not been transferred out of Delhi, whereas by adopting pick and choose policy and in violation of the said transfer guidelines, the respondent -Department has transferred him from Delhi to Dehradun. In paragraph 4(vii) of the O.A., the applicant has stated that at the time of issuance of the order of transfer, his son was studying MBA at N.P.T.I., Faridabad and would be completing the said course in May -June 2014. Because of non -availability of hostel accommodation or any other alternate accommodation, his son was residing with him at the Government accommodation and that his untimely displacement from Delhi would not only cause financial and other hardships, but also adversely affect the studies of his son. The representations made by the applicant having yielded no fruitful result, the present O.A. has been filed by him.
(2.) THE respondents have filed a counter reply resisting the claim made by the applicant. It is stated that the transfer of the applicant has been ordered as per the transfer guidelines, vide O.M. dated 10.8.2004. It is also stated that while making such transfer, various other factors, such as, public interest, exigency of work, individual representation, etc., are also taken into consideration by the respondents. In reply to the applicant's assertion regarding non -transfer of officers at sl. nos. 1 to 3 and 5 of the list of longest stayed Assistant Directors (Horticulture) circulated on 19.3.2013, it is stated that the officer mentioned at Sl. No. 1 is working as Assistant Director (Horticulture) in the Lok Sabha Secretariat. Under the existing instructions issued by the Ministry of Urban Development dated 21.11.2005(Annexure R -2), prior concurrence of the Lok Sabha Secretariat is required to be taken for posting of CPWD officers up to the level of Superintending Engineer (including Horticulture Wing). A panel of officers was accordingly sent to the Lok Sabha Secretariat for selecting an officer. However, the Lok Sabha Secretariat extended the tenure of the said officer up to 30.9.2014. The Directorate General, C.P.W.D., however, took up the matter with the Secretary General, Lok Sabha Secretariat, to relieve the said officer immediately, he being the longest stayed officer, but no response was received. As regards the officers at sl. nos. 2 and 3 in the list of longest stayed Assistant Directors (Horticulture), it is stated by the respondents that the said two officers were posted at Prime Minister's Office and Prime Minister's Residence respectively. Under the existing instructions, consultation with Prime Minster's Office for making transfer/posting of the officers, who are assigned the responsibility of looking after the work of the P.M. House and P.M. Office, is necessary, vide instructions dated 18.7.2002 (Annexure R -5) issued by the Ministry of Urban Development. The panel of officers sent to the Prime Minister's Office for selecting suitable officer in place of the officer at sl. no. 2 was returned by the Prime Minister's Office requesting that status quo may be maintained. However, the matter was again taken up with the Prime Minister's Office to relieve these officers immediately, vide letter dated 1.7.2013. As regards the officer mentioned at sl. no. 5, the respondents have stated that the said officer submitted a representation for his retention at Delhi for one year on account of marriage of his daughter. His request was considered on a very sympathetic ground and he would be transferred as per norms in the year 2014. In view of the above, the respondents have prayed for dismissal of the O.A. In the rejoinder reply, the applicant has refuted the stand taken by the respondents. The applicant has stated that it is for the respondents to ensure that the transfer policy is strictly implemented, and that the respondents cannot take shelter of the pretext that they are not getting concurrence/clearance from the Lok Sabha Secretariat or the Prime Minister's Officer. It is submitted by the applicant that the respondents cannot create two groups in the cadre to which the applicant and the officers named at sl. nos. 1 to 3 and 5 of the list of longest stayed Assistant Directors (Horticulture) belong. That is to say, one group would remain posted to the Lok Sabha Secretariat and the P.M.O. and the other group would be posted to the places as per the whims and fancy of the respondents. The applicant has stated that no prior concurrence or approval was taken by the respondents from the Lok Sabha Secretariat or the P.M. Office for posting of officers at sl. nos. 1, 2 and 3 of the list of longest stayed Assistant Directors (Hort.).
(3.) THE applicant has also filed an additional affidavit along with the following documents: i) Government of India, Central Vigilance Commission's letters dated 15.4.1999, 1.5.2008, 11.9.2013 regarding rotation of officials working in sensitive posts. ii) Directorate General, CPWDs circular dated August 2013. Government of India, Directorate General, CPWD, letter dated 19.11.2013 granting recognition to CPWD Horticulture Officers Association. CPWD Horticulture Officers Associations letter intimating the names of office bearers of the Association to the respondent no. 2. CPWD Horticulture Officers Association's letter dated 2.12.2013 claiming transfer of the applicant as General Secretary to the headquarters. O.M. No. 27/3/69 -Estt. (B) dated 8.4.1969 of Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, regarding facilities for recognized Unions/Associations of the Central Government employees. Referring to the aforesaid documents, the applicant has submitted that the respondents should have effected rotational transfer of officers working in sensitive posts and that he being the General Secretary of the Association is entitled to certain benefits including his posting to the headquarters at Delhi.;