IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 27TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 5TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 24310 of 2010(S) -------------------------- OA.88/2010 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CUSTOMS HOUSE, COCHIN-9. 2. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (GENERAL), NEW CUSTOM HOUSE, BALLARD ESTATE, MUMBAI-400 001. 3. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDINGS, I.S.PRESS ROAD, COCHIN-18. 4. CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE & CUSTOMS, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI. 5. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI. BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. L.RAMESH, S/O.LATE LAKSHMANAN, WORKING AS TAX ASSISTANT (ON DEPUTATION) CUSTOMS HOUSE, WELLINGTON ISLAND, KOCHI-9, RESIDING AT VELLAKAZHATHU HOUSE, KUTHIATHODE, CHERTHALA-688 533. 2. THE REGISTRAR, THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.O.V.RADHAKRISHNAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R1 SMT.K.RADHAMANI AMMA FOR R1 SRI.K.RAMACHANDRAN (THYKOODAM) FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------- W.P.C. No. 24310 of 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of September, 2010 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Heard standing counsel for the petitioners and senior counsel Sri. O.V. Radhakrishnan, for the respondents, who took notice on admission. The first respondent came on transfer under deputation scheme from Mumbai Commissionerate to Cochin Commissionerate, where he has completed 5 years' tenure, the maximum permissible under the deputation scheme. However, Government later changed the policy permitting inter-Commissionerate transfer on regular basis, without even affecting the seniority of the transferred employee if his spouse is stationed in the place to which he seeks transfer. Admittedly first respondent is eligible because his wife is employed in Kerala. So far as his seniority is concerned, the Tribunal has made it clear that the question of seniority will depend upon their decision in a batch case pending before it. According to the petitioners, the Chief Commissioner has not approved the transfer and only the Mumbai WPC 24310 of 2010 2 Commissionerate has granted sanction. If vacancies are available in Kerala, we see no reason why the Chief Commissioner should deny the benefit granted to an employee under the Government scheme. If there is no vacancy or if there is any other tenable reason for the Chief Commissioner to disapprove the request for regular transfer, we give freedom to the petitioners to move the Tribunal in review. W.P.C. is dismissed as we find no grievance for the Department as of now. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (K. SURENDRA MOHAN) Judge. kk WPC 24310 of 2010 3