THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR Writ Petition No.23465 of 2009 ORDER : (per VE, J.) The petitioner while working at Hyderabad as Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, Regional Authority, Hyderabad, he was transferred to Regional Authority, Bangalore vide Office Order No.37/2009, dated 22-05-2009. The petitioner accepted the said order and joined at Bangalore and he worked there for more than five months. Thereafter, he was again transferred along with others, on the administrative grounds, vide Office Order No.79/2009, dated 05-10-2009 from Regional Authority, Bangalore to Regional Authority, Cochin as Joint Director General of Foreign Trade. Questioning both the aforesaid orders, the petitioner filed O.A. (SR) No.2755 of 2009 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad Bench. The Registry of the said Administrative Tribunal made the following objections : “1. How the O.A. can be filed before the Hon’ble Bench of this Tribunal U/R 6(1) & (2) of the CAT (P) Rules, 1987 when the present place of posting of the applicant is at Bangalore and the impugned orders are issued by the Director General of Foreign Trade, M/o Commerce and Industry, New Delhi, where the cause of action arose. 2. As the two different transfer orders are impugned, two O.As. may be filed.” For the aforesaid objections, the petitioner’s counsel replied as under: “1. Since the applicant is challenging his transfer from Hyderabad to Bangalore with a further direction to post him to the vacant post at Hyderabad. Hence, the O.A. is maintainable. 2. Since the impugned order dated 22-05-2009 transferring the applicant from Hyderabad to Bangalore is assailed on the ground of malafides as subsequent transfer order dated 05-10-2009 is the result of such malafides action in assailing orders of respondent No.1, who is also made party respondent No.2 as malafides alleged. All orders of transfer and relief are effected at Hyderabad. Orders are passed by same respondent. So the application is maintainable.” Thereafter, the matter was posted before the Bench and after hearing the petitioner, the Central Administrative Tribunal passed the following order. “Heard Mr.D.Govardhana Chary, counsel for the applicant and Ms.Shyama Sundari, counsel for the respondents. The applicant in pursuance of the transfer order, dated 22-05-2009 joined at Bangalore and he was transferred from Hyderabad to Bangalore. While he was working at Bangalore, he was again transferred to Cochin and the grievance of the applicant is that instead of transferring him to Hyderabad he was transferred to Cochin and therefore, the cause of action arises on account of the second transfer order which was passed on the applicant while he was working at Bangalore. Therefore, it is the Tribunal at Bangalore to be approached which is having jurisdiction. The applicant wrongly described himself as if he is working at Hyderabad though he ought to have been described as working at Bangalore or at Cochin to which he was transferred and also relieved at Bangalore. After complying with the first transfer order, he cannot now challenge the earlier transfer order along with the second transfer order. Hence, we uphold the office objection. In our view, earlier transfer order cannot now be challenged in view of joining at Bangalore and thereafter receiving another transfer. Office Objection is upheld. Office is directed to return the application for presentation before the proper Tribunal having jurisdiction.” Assailing the said order, this Writ Petition is filed contending that the post of Joint Director General of Foreign Trade is still vacant at Hyderabad and he is entitled to come back by transfer to the said post and his transfer from Hyderabad to Bangalore and further transfer from Bangalore to Cochin is illegal and malafidi. We are not inclined to express any opinion with regard to the merits of the case. Admittedly, the petitioner accepted the transfer order, dated 22-05-2009 transferring him from Hyderabad to Bangalore and he has joined at Bangalore immediately pursuant to the aforesaid transfer order and worked there for more than five months. Having accepted the transfer order transferring him from Hyderabad to Bangalore, we are of the opinion that he cannot have grievance about the said transfer order, as it has already worked out. However, the petitioner can urge his objections thereto, while questioning the second transfer from Bangalore to Cochin. Admittedly, the Central Administrative Tribunals are established at Bangalore and Cochin also and the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore will have jurisdiction to deal with the service matters of the Central Government Authorities working within the territorial limits of the State of Karnataka. Under Rule 6 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 an application shall ordinarily be filed by an applicant with the Registrar of the Bench within whose jurisdiction the applicant is posted for the time being. The counsel appearing for the petitioner stated that as per Rule 6 (1)(ii), even if the part of cause of action arises within the limits of the State of Andhra Pradesh, he is entitled to file an application in the Central Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad. Admittedly, insofar as second transfer order is concerned, no part of cause of action arises within the territorial limits of the State of Andhra Pradesh, therefore, it cannot be said that a part of cause of action arises within the State of Andhra Pradesh so as to enable him to question the said order before the Central Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad Bench. Under Rule 6 (2) a person is entitled to file an application with the Registrar of the concerned Bench within whose jurisdiction such person is ordinarily residing at the time of filing of the application. At the time of filing of the application before the Central Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad, the petitioner was residing at Bangalore only, therefore, it cannot be said that he is ordinarily residing at Hyderabad. The cause of action, if any, relating to the first transfer order does not survive as he has joined before at Bangalore, six months ago and so far as second transfer order is concerned, no cause of action arises before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. Therefore, he can approach at Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore alone and if he chooses to join at Cochin under protest, he can as well question the same before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cochin also. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. __________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J. 02nd November, 2009. Note : Issue C.C. in two days. B/o Skmr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR Writ Petition No.23465 of 2009 Date : 02-11-2009 Between : V.Sraman .. Petitioner And The Director General of Foreign Trade, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Department of Commerce, Government of India, Udyog Bhavan, New Delhi & 2 Others .. Respondents