IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI MONDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2008 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 34456 of 2008 ------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 17/01/2008 IN RA 20/07 IN OA.181/2006 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, DEPARTMENT OF POSTS,MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATION, NEW DELHI. 2. CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL, KERALA CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, ALAPPUZHA. 4. ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, ALAPPUZHA SUB DIVISION, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR RESPONDENT: ------------------ N.MANIYAN,S/O.NEELAKANDAN ACHARI, AGED 51 YEARS,GDS MD/MC. THOTTAPPALLY EDSO, ALAPPUZHA, RESIDING AT CHALAPURAMBU, AMBALAPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.34456 OF 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of December, 2008 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. The writ petitioners are respondents in O.A.No.181/2006. Ext.P1 is the copy of the Original Application filed by the respondent herein. He was a Gramin Dak Sevak Male Carrier. He was working at Ambalappuzha. He requested for a transfer to Thottappally apprehending that the post held by him at Ambalappuzha will be abolished. The said request was granted. Later, he sought a re-transfer to Ambalappuzha. His representation in this regard was rejected. So, he filed Ext.P1 O.A. challenging those orders, as per which his claim was rejected. 2. The respondents resisted the application contending that, as per the relevant orders, a G.D.S. can seek transfer only once and in the case of the respondent/applicant it was already granted. Therefore, the present request is not sustainable. But, W.P.(C) No.34456/2008 2 the applicant contended that, in fact, his transfer from Ambalappuzha to Thottappally should be considered as deployment on abolition of his post. If an incumbent is deployed on abolition of his post, he is entitled to seek yet another transfer. The said contention of the respondent/applicant was upheld by the C.A.T. Though his transfer to Thottappallly was on request, the same was ordered anticipating abolition of the post and the ground taken by the applicant in his request was also anticipation of abolition of post. Therefore, the Tribunal took the view that he is entitled to request for transfer a second time. In the result, the O.A. was allowed by Ext.P7 order dated 12.6.2007. The respondents filed a review application which was dismissed by Ext.P12 order dated 17.1.2008. This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P7. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners canvassed the very same point, they canvassed for the C.A.T. and submitted that a G.D.S. is not entitled to seek a second transfer on his request to a convenient place. But, we notice that there is considerable delay in challenging Ext.P7. The review application was also dismissed on 17.1.2008. Normally, an adverse order W.P.(C) No.34456/2008 3 should be challenged by the aggrieved person, within three months. The learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that they filed a correction petition in the above O.A. and that was disposed of only on 27.5.2008, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P14. Even after passing Ext.P14, we find that there is unexplained delay in moving this writ petition. Further, we are of the view that the stand taken by the C.A.T. regarding the first transfer from Ambalappuzha to Thottappally is a plausible view on facts. The Tribunal held that, the said transfer should be treated as a transfer on abolition of the post at Ambalappuzha. The said view cannot be said to be perverse. Finally, we notice that by transferring a G.D.S employee from Thottappally to Ambalappuzha, which are nearby places, no serious prejudice is caused to the writ petitioners. In view of the above position, the writ petition is dismissed in limine. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) ps