IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS FRIDAY, THE 13TH MARCH 2009 / 22ND PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 327 of 2006(S) ------------------------ OA.126/2005 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, NEW DELHI. 2. THE CONTROLLER GENERAL OF DEFENCE ACCOUNTS, R.K.PURAM, NEW DELHI. 3. THE DEPUTY CONTROLLER GENERAL OF DEFENCE ACCOUNTS (ADMINISTRATION), R.K.PURAM, NEW DELHI. 4. THE CONTROLLER OF DEFENCE ACCOUNTS, ANNA SALAI, TEYNAMPET, CHENNAI-18. 5. THE ASSISTANT CONTROLLER OF DEFENCE ACCOUNTS (IN-CHARGE) PAY & ACCOUNTS OFFICE (OTHER RANKS) DEFENCE SECURITY CORPS, MILL ROAD, KANNUR-13. BY ADV. SRI.TPM.IBRAHIM KHAN,SENIOR CENTRAL GOVT.SC. RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. NARAYANAN EDACHERRY, CLERK A/C NO. 8332711, PAY & ACCOUNTS OFFICE (OTHER RANKS) DEFENCE SECURITY CORPS, MILL ROAD, KANNUR-13. 2. THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH, KOCHI-682 017. ADV. SRI.V.AJITH NARAYANAN FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/03/2009, THE COURT ON DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.327/2005 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE O.A.126/2005 ALONG WITH ITS ANNEXURES FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT/APPLICANT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT - CAT, ERNAKULAM BENCH. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS IN O.A.NO.126/2005 BEFORE THE CAT, ERNAKULAM BENCH. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE REJOINDER FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DT.12.4.2005 IN EXT.P1 O.A. BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT- TRIBUNAL. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL REPLY STATEMENT IN O.A.NO.126/2005 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS ON 7.6.2005 BEFORE THE CAT, ERNAKULAM BENCH. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL REJOINDER ALONG WITH ITS ANNEXURE FILE BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT/APPLICANT ON 17.6.2005 IN EXT.P1 ORIGINAL APPLICATION. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE 2ND ADDITIONAL REPLY STATEMENT ALONGWITH ITS ANNEXURE FILED BY THE PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS ON 27.8.2005 IN EXT.P1 ORIGINAL APPLICATION. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.AN/X/10055/2005/IDT/CAT/LS DT.10.6.2005 ISSUED BY THE CONTROLLER GENERAL OF DEFENCE ACCOUNTS NEW DELHI. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE ORDER DT.19.10.2005 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH IN EXT.P1 O.A.NO.126/2005. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE ORDER DT.24.6.2005 PASSED BY THE MADRAS BENCH OF THE HON'BLE CAT IN O.A.NO.493/2005. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DT.18.7.2005 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS IN W.P.NO.22790/2005. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No. 327 OF 2006 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. The respondents in O.A.No.126/2005 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench are the writ petitioners. The 1st respondent herein was the applicant. He filed Ext.P1 Original Application challenging his transfer from Kannur to Meerut, under Annexure-A2 order, and also other related orders. The C.A.T, after hearing both sides, allowed the Original Application as per Ext.P8 and the following directions were issued. “10. In the conspectus of facts and circumstances I am of the considered view that the transfer of the applicant is not in the true spirit of the guidelines and therefore Annexure-A2, Annexure-A7, Annexure-A9 and Annexure-A10 impugned orders will not stand in its legs. The same are set aside. Respondents are directed to grant proper reliefs to the applicant by retaining him at Kannur since he is entitled for the same as per the guidelines.” W.P.(C) No.327/2006 2 Challenging Ext.P8, this writ petition was filed. This Court did not grant any interim order, therefore, the 1st respondent continued at Kannur. The vacancy in Meerut, to which the 1st respondent was transferred, must have been filled up long ago. The said respondent has now passed 58 years of age. In view of the above position, the orders impugned in the Original Application cannot be implemented now. But, we feel that the power of the appointing authority to transfer the 1st respondent in future in accordance with the relevant norms or in exigencies of service should be upheld. So, the writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the competent authority among the writ petitioners to transfer the 1st respondent in future, if found necessary, in accordance with the relevant norms or in exigencies of service. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE) ps