HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPAHY W.P. No.22118 of 2010 Dated 05-10-2010 Between: Union of India, rep. by its Secretary, Department of Defence Production, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi and others. ……..Petitioner Vs. Umashankar and another. ………Respondents HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPAHY W.P. No.22118 of 2010 ORDER (Per TMK,J): This writ petition is filed by the Union of India challenging the order dated 30-07-2010 in O.A.No.691 of 2010, on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal (for brevity ‘the Tribunal’), Hyderabad. 2. The petitioners herein are the respondents and the 1st respondent herein is the applicant in O.A.No.691 of 2010. For the sake of convenience, they are herein after referred to as they were arrayed in O.A.No.691 of 2010. 3. The brief facts of the case which lead to the filing of this writ petition are that the applicant joined Indian Ordnance Factories Service on 02-04-1988 at OFP, Medak and after his transfers from place to place, recently again he was posted at OFP, Medak from Chennai and he had completed 11 months service in the said station. While so, the 2nd respondent issued orders No.381/2037/A/G, dated 23-06-2010, transferring the applicant from Ordnance Factory, Medak to Director/DCOLF, Dehradun, and the 3rd respondent issued orders dated 02-07-2010 relieving the applicant of his duties. Aggrieved by the same, the applicant filed O.A.No.691 of 2010, on the file of Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, to quash the transfer and relieving orders dated 23-06-2010 and 02-07-2010, issued by the 2nd and 3rd respondents, respectively, declaring the same as arbitrary and mala fide, and consequently direct the respondents to consider his case for retention at the present Unit for a tenure of 5 years minimum and 9 years maximum as per the transfer policy under the relevant instructions and guidelines. The learned Tribunal after considering the contentions raised by both the counsel and all the material available on record, by order dated 30-07-2010, disposed of the O.A. directing the respondents to keep the transfer and relieving orders dated 23-06-2010 and 02- 07-2010, issued by the 2nd and 3rd respondents, respectively, in abeyance till 31-05-2011 or till the completion of X class Board Examination of the applicant’s son, whichever is earlier. Having not satisfied with the order of the Tribunal, the respondents therein filed the present writ of Certiorari calling for records pertaining to order dated 30-07-2010 in O.A.No.691 of 2010 and quash the same. 4. Heard the learned standing counsel for the petitioners-Management and the learned counsel for the 1st respondent-applicant. 5. The learned standing counsel for the writ petitioners contended that the transfer orders were issued as per the recommendations of the controlling authority i.e. Staff Posting Committee on administrative grounds. The confidential reports reveals that when the applicant was entrusted the responsibility of production activities of Sheet Metal Shop, he was found difficulties with his temperament to get the completion of work along with the staff and workmen of the section. Therefore, the petitioners, after considering all the aspects including the performance and conduct of the applicant, issued transfer orders. He further contended that the applicant has made a representation, dated 30-06-2010, before the authorities concerned to retain him in the station i.e. O.F.P., Medak, for a period of three years and pending consideration of the same, he approached the Tribunal and filed the O.A., therefore, the transfer orders were issued in accordance with law and they need not be interfered with. 6. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent-applicant submitted that as per the transfer policy adopted by the petitioners, the Technical Officers of JAG level and below can be continued in the same station for a tenure of minimum of 5 years and maximum of 9 years except on administrative reasons. He further submitted that the applicant has already suffered four transfers and he recently joined in the present station. The 1st respondent-applicant has got physically handicapped wife and his daughter is studying 3rd year Engineering, son is studying 10th class. In order to get local candidate quota of 85%, a student has to study at least four consecutive academic years in a particular state. If transfer is affected, his son’s career will be affected to admit in professional courses in reputed colleges. He further submitted that the applicant is not against the transfer, but however, on humanitarian grounds, his case may be considered. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, it is clear that the applicant has already suffered with four transfers. His children are also studying in the respective colleges. But, as held by the Tribunal, unless there is a mala fide intention in the transfer order, there is hardly any scope to interfere with the same. As per the guidelines stipulated in the transfer policy, it is made clear that transfer is an incidence of service and it does not require the consent of the employee. An employee can be transferred on administrative exigencies and in public interest. Further, the Government is empowered to transfer a civil servant from one post to another or to an equivalent post in the same cadre. Hence, no Government employee has any right to be posted at any particular place forever, because transfer is not only an incidence of service, but also a condition of service. However, the Tribunal, taking into consideration the education of his children which is in the middle of academic year, directed the petitioners-Management to keep the transfer order in abeyance till the completion of academic year or till 31-05-2011, whichever is earlier. 8. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, and in view of the fact that the education of the children of the 1st respondent-applicant is in the middle of the academic year, we are of the considered opinion that the 1st respondent-applicant may be given one more opportunity to approach the authorities concerned by making an appropriate application to continue him in the same station for some more period. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the 1st respondent-applicant to make appropriate application before the petitioners-Management to continue him in the same station for some more period. On receipt of such application, the petitioners-Management may consider the same and issue appropriate orders on humanitarian grounds. There shall be no order as to costs. 10. As a sequel to the disposal of the writ petition, the W.P.M.P.No.28173 of 2010 and W.V.M.P.No.4324 of 2010 are also disposed of. ____________________ T.MEENA KUMARI,J 05.10.2010 __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY,J kvr