🖨️ Print / Download PDF

Joy Karunakaran Vs Union Of India Represented By The Secretary To The Government Of India, Ministry Of Defence, New Delhi-110011 & Ors.

Case No: Original Application No. 180, 00616 Of 2024

Date of Decision: Jan. 6, 2025

Hon'ble Judges: K. Haripal, Member (J)

Bench: Single Bench

Advocate: T.C. Govindaswamy, Kala T. Gopi, Kailesh T. Gopi, Nishitha Balachandran, Sudhir Kumar B, Mamatha S Anilkumar

Final Decision: Dismissed

Translate: English | हिन्दी | தமிழ் | తెలుగు | ಕನ್ನಡ | मराठी

Judgement

K. Haripal, Member J

1. Annexure-A1 order issued by the 2nd respondent temporarily attaching the applicant, along with six others, to PCDA(Navy), Mumbai till

31.01.2025 for a 'specific task related to pension work under the organisation of PCDA(N) Mumbai' is under challenge in this O.A. Applicant is a

Senior Auditor in SPARSH Service Centre, Defence Accounts Department, Thiruvananthapuram. He is working in Thiruvananthapuram from 2017.

He is already under orders of transfer, by virtue of Annexures-A2 and A4, to Kochi. However, on consideration that his elder child is studying in

Standard-X, the transfer stands deferred till 31.03.2025. According to the applicant, while so, he was attached to LAO(A), Thiruvananthapuram as

per Annexure-A6 order which also has been deferred by Annexure-A7, till 31.12.2024. In the midst of the transfer/attachment and ignoring the

transfer policy that a transfer shall not be made if the child is in Class X/XII, now he has been transferred to Mumbai, though as a temporary

attachment. Annexure-A1 is sought to be quashed and he seeks for a direction to the respondents to allow him to continue in Thiruvananthapuram till

the end of the academic year.

2. According to the applicant, Annexure-A1 has been issued in an extremely arbitrary and discriminatory manner intending to overcome Annexure-A5

order by which his transfer to Kochi stands deferred till 31.03.2025. His attachment to LAO(A) also stands deferred. So, he says that Annexure-A1 is

issued in malafide exercise of power, that no public interest is involved in making the transfer.

3. The respondents, on the other hand, submitted that Defence Accounts Department is a vast organisation with wide network spread all over India

with more than 1100 offices located at 245 stations, dispersed over the length and breadth of the country to cater to the needs of all Military forces

and other Defence establishments like DRDO, Coast Guard, DGQA, DGBR, DGNCC Defence Estate, Canteen, Store Department etc. Some of

such offices are located at far-flung corners and inhospitable terrains of the country. Transfer policy guidelines of the respondents are not intended to

create any entitlement but for the smooth functioning of the department, which is more important. Under the impugned document, the applicant has

been attached to PCDA Office, Mumbai for a brief period up to 31.01.2025, for a specific task related to pension work which does not offend

guidelines of the transfer policy, which have been done on administrative ground. Such an administrative ground is outside the purview of the transfer

policy.

4. Referring to Annexure-R1(a) it is submitted that some of the officers attached to PCDA(Navy), Mumbai had given representations for exemption,

but the request given by the applicant was not acceded to. The applicant was selected to handle administrative exigencies for the reason of seniority

and past experience in pension work. There is an urgent requirement of employees experienced in pension work. The attachment period is very brief

till 31.01.2025. So, the application is sought to be dismissed.

5. By interim order dated 25.11.2024 there was a direction not to relieve the applicant, which order continues.

6. I heard Smt. Mamtha S Anilkumar, the learned counsel for the applicant and Smt.O.M.Shalina, the learned Senior Central Government Standing

Counsel for the respondents.

7. As seen by Annexure-A1 the applicant stands attached to Mumbai office on a purely temporary basis for a specific task related to pension work.

Seven such persons have been picked up and attached to that office in Mumbai. Then the applicant gave Annexure-A8 representation requesting to

exempt him citing personal reasons, which has been rejected under Annexure-R1(a).

8. It is not disputed that the son of the applicant is in Standard-X and his examination is in March 2025. He has other personal inconveniences also; his

wife is a Dental Hygienist in Government Dental College at Kottayam. He has another child in Standard-VIII and parents are suffering from age

related difficulties. All the same, we cannot forget the fact that Annexure-A1 is a purely temporary arrangement lasting only till 31.01.2025. The

transfer policy or the fact that Annexure-A2 stands deferred till 31.03.2025 cannot stand on the way of making such a temporary arrangement on

administrative exigencies. The importance of services rendered by the Defence Accounts Department need not be overemphasized. Mumbai office to

which he is temporarily attached handles pension matters of employees retired from far-flung offices. Even though it is stated that Annexure-A1 is

issued in malafide exercise of power, the contention lacks particulars. It cannot be believed that the respondents who showed magnanimity in

deferring Annexures-A2 and A4 transfers till 31.03.2025 had done such an attachment to overcome the earlier order. That contention does not inspire

confidence.

9. The examination of the child is only in March 2025. Now, Annexure-A1 has been issued due to administrative exigencies for a fixed period of time.

It does not stand to reason that it was issued either to trouble the applicant or to cause inconveniences to any person. But public interest should over-

weigh such personal inconveniences. Here, the respondents have asserted that the applicant has been chosen considering his seniority and past

experience in dealing with pension matters. That is done in public interest only.

10. Now, by virtue of the interim order he could pull on over more than 1½ months. The period remaining is less than 20 working days. As an

obedient and diligent official, whose ability and experience in the field have been recognised, it cannot be interfered with by way of judicial review.

11. As rightly pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel, the correctness of such orders cannot be weighed by the Tribunal. It should be left to the

wisdom of the employer. Not only that, no malafides are alleged or proved; the public interest highlighted by the respondents should not give way to

the personal inconveniences of the applicant.

The Original Application lacks merit and is dismissed. No costs.

(Dated, this the 6th January, 2025)