IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI THURSDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2011 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1933 OP (CAT).No. 1039 of 2011 (S) --------------------------------------------- OA.962/2010 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 5: ------------------------------------------------------------ 1. UNION OF INDIA, REP.BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS, NEW DELHI. 2. THE CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL, KERALA CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE POSTMASTER GENERAL, NORTHERN REGION, CALICUT. 4. THE DIRECTOR OF POSTAL SERVICES, OFFICE OF THE POSTMASTER GENERAL,NORTHERN REGION, CALICUT - 673 011. 5. THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, CALICUT DIVISION, CALICUT. BY ADV. SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, CGC RESPONDENTS : APPLICANT/6TH RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. SMT.MOLLY JOSEPH, AGED 53 YEARS, D/O.LATE V.J. JOSEPH, ACCOUNTANT, POSTAL STORES DEPOT, CALICUT RESIDING AT 'SHERENE', FLORICAN ROAD, KARAPARAMBA, CALICUT 673 010. 2. SMT.SHYALA MARY, ACCOUNTANT, POSTAL STORES DEPOT, DEPARTMENT OF POST, CALICUT. ADV. SRI.T.C.GOVINDA SWAMY FOR R1 SRI.G.SHYAM RAJ FOR R1 SRI.M.A.SHAFFIK-R2 THIS O.P.(CAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P.(CAT).No. 1039 of 2011 (S) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: Ext.P1: True copy of the O.A. along with Annexures in O.A.No.962/2010. Ext.P2: True copy of the reply statement in O.A.No.962/2010 dated 3-12-2010. Ext.P3: True copy of the Additional Reply statement filed by the petitioner dated 14-12-2010 without annexures. Ext.P4: True copy of the order in O.A.No.962/2010 dated 11-2-2011 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam. // True copy // P.A. to Judge A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P.(CAT)No.1039 OF 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 9th day of June 2011 JUDGMENT Basheer, J. This Original Petition, which is at the instance of the Chief Postmaster General, Kerala Circle and other officials in the Department of Posts, is directed against the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench in O.A.962/2010. The question that came up for consideration before the Tribunal was whether the department was justified in transferring respondent No.1 from Calicut to Kalpetta in Wayanad district. 2. The Tribunal, after considering the rival contentions of the parties, set aside the order of transfer and directed the department to consider whether she could be accommodated in any of the vacant posts in Calicut in accordance with the mandatory provisions in the O.M. dated September 30, 2009 within a fortnight of receipt of a copy of the order. It was further held by the Tribunal that the request made by respondent No.1 for sanction of leave shall be allowed by the department and leave salary shall be paid to her forthwith. 3. Petitioners have raised various contentions while impugning the order passed by the Tribunal. The primary contention is that respondent No.1, who is liable to be transferred anywhere in India under the transfer norms, cannot be heard to say that she is bound to be retained in the present station where she has been working for about eight years. The other contention is that respondent No.1 has been ordered to be shifted to Kalpetta, since the post of Accountant has been lying vacant in that station. There is shortage of Accountants in the department and it was therefore that respondent No.1 who is a Senior Accountant working in O.P.(CAT)No.1039 OF 2011 :: 2 :: Calicut for quite a long tenure, had been ordered to be shifted. The above contentions have been repelled by the Tribunal. 4. We do not propose to advert to the arguments advanced by Sri.Govinda Swamy, learned counsel for respondent No.1 in view of the intervening developments. 5. When this original petition came up for consideration before us on June 1, 2011 we had passed an interim order, the relevant portion of which is extracted hereunder: “3. We have heard learned counsel on both sides at length. In the course of hearing, we were informed that Postal Assistants are being engaged as Accountants on working arrangement and that respondent No.1 was sought to be transferred to Wayanad, since there was nobody to discharge the duties of Accountant in that station. The case of the respondent is that there are three vacancies of Accountant as on today in Calicut itself and that she could be accommodated as against any one of them. 4. Anyhow, in the course of the arguments it came out that the respondent can be accommodated as a Postal Assistant if she is prepared to work in that post. Sri.Govinda Swamy, who appears for respondent No.1, submits, after getting instructions from his client that respondent No.1 is prepared to work as Postal Assistant if the department is prepared to accommodate her in one of the vacancies available in that post. Sri.S.Krishnamoorthy, learned Standing Counsel who appears for the department, submits that he has been instructed to inform the court that the department is prepared to give a posting to respondent No.1 as Postal Assistant in one of the vacancies in Calicut itself. 5. In view of the above development, we do not propose to pass any further orders in the matter at this stage. The department shall issue appropriate orders of posting in the light of the submissions made above. The order shall be produced before this court within a week.” 6. Pursuant to the order passed by us, the Department has issued an order (Memo No.BM 19 Dated 06.06.11) posting respondent No.1 as Sub Postmaster at Arakinar in Calicut in the cadre of Postal Assistant. A copy of the said order has O.P.(CAT)No.1039 OF 2011 :: 3 :: been served on the learned counsel for respondent No.1 also. 7. In view of this development, we do not deem it necessary to consider the merit or demerit of the various contentions raised by the parties. We make it clear that respondent No.1 shall be treated as though she was on duty with effect from November 9, 2010, the date on which the Tribunal passed the order of interim stay directing the department to allow respondent No.1 to continue in Calicut itself. We are persuaded to take this view, since we are informed that respondent No.1 was not allowed to join duty in spite of the above interim order passed by the Tribunal. Still further, on April 12, 2011 this court had passed an interim order directing the department to accommodate respondent No.1 against one of the two vacancies available at Calicut on an ad-hoc arrangement for a period of six weeks subject to further orders in the Original Petition. But the learned counsel for respondent No.1 has informed that she was allowed to join duty only on April 30, 2011. We do not find any reason to disbelieve the assertion made by the learned counsel for respondent No.1. We refrain from making any comment on this aspect. The original petition is closed recording the above intervening developments. The interim order passed by this court on June 1, 2011 shall form part of this judgment. All the pending interlocutory applications are closed. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE jes