Soumitra Pal, J. - (1.) The writ petitioners have prayed for setting aside the order dated 21st December, 2004 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta refusing to grant interim order staying the orders of transfer.
(2.) The facts, as stated in the writ petition, are that the petitioners were appointed in group 'C' post in the Shipping Office at Calcutta. The petitioner Nos. 1, 3 and 4 after being selected by the Staff Selection Commission under the direct recruitment quota were appointed as Lower Division Clerks. The petitioner No. 2 was appointed as Lower Division Clerk pursuant to an interview arranged by the Regional Employment Exchange, Calcutta (for short "REC") and also on the basis of an examination held by the appointing authority. The petitioner No. 1 was appointed in the year 1981, the petitioner No. 2 in 1979 and the petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 in 1983. The petitioner No. 1 having 60% permanent/partial deformity belongs to the physically handicapped category. Since appointment they are posted in Calcutta. It is stated that the petitioner nos. 1, 3 and 4 at the time of making the application before the Staff Selection Commission by opting for group 'Y' posts indicated their intention to be posted in the eastern region. Transfer cannot be a condition of service since they were inducted in group 'Y' posts or at best transfer can be effected within the said zone. Since the petitioner No.2 was selected upon being sponsored by the REC there is no scope for transfer beyond the jurisdiction of the concerned exchange which sponsored him.
(3.) Referring to the C.C.S. (Re-Deployment of Surplus Staff) Rules, 1990 scheme, circular and the reports of the Department of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances or the Staff Selection Unit (for short "SSU") or the Internal Works State Unit (for short 'IWSU') constituted by the Ministry, it has been stated that there is a procedure for reduction and declaring the staff as surplus. The said procedure has not been adhered to. Moreover, under the recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission in case of employees under group 'C' and 'D' recruited on a regional basis, postings should be given in the home town/district wherever feasible and transfers should be restricted within the region and/or zone. In the guise of re-organization, the Deputy Director General of Shipping, Mumbai and Government Shipping Office issued a relieving order without issuing any transfer order. It has been submitted that the order does not reflect that the posts have been abolished and there is a re-organization and redeployment of staff. Thus, it was in violation of the statutory rules and in disregard to the report of the SSU and IWSU. The Deputy Director General issuing the order on 6th November, 2004 directed the petitioners to be released immediately. While petitioner No. 1 was directed to join at Paradeep, the petitioner nos. 2, 3 and 4 were directed to report at Mumbai. Representations were submitted on 9th November, 2004, 16th November, 2004, 22nd November, 2004, 25th November, 2004 and 29th November, 2004 but without any result. However, it has been stated that the order of transfer was modified and instead of Paradeep, the petitioner No. 1 was transferred to Haldia which had no staff strength. By filing an application being O.A. No. 1146 of 2004 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, the orders of transfer were challenged. Prayer was made for setting aside the orders of transfers. Interim order was also prayed for. On 21st December, 2004, the learned Tribunal after hearing, refused to pass an interim order. According to the petitioners, while passing the order, the contentions raised by the petitioners were not considered.;