IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD FEBRUARY 2011 / 4TH PHALGUNA 1932 OP (CAT).No. 1211 of 2010(S) --------------------- OA.786/2010 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH ................ PETITIONER : ------------------- GEORGE VARGHESE, CHERUMANNIL THEKKETHIL, VENMONY P.O., ALAPPUZHA, PIN-689 509. BY ADVS. SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR SRI.ANTONY V. PAUL RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE JOINT DIRECTOR, SUBSIDIARY INTELLIGENCE BURUEAU (MHA), GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, 572, MOUNT FOR HOUSE, THEYVAUDU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SUBSIDIARY INTELLIGENCE BURUEAU (MHA), GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, S.H.B.COLONY, NANNOOKADU, PATHANAMTHITTA PO. 3. DIRECTOR, INTELLIGENCE BUREAU, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS (MHA), GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI-1. 4. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI. R1 TO R4 BY ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN, ASST.S.G OF INDIA THIS OP (CAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- OP (CAT).No. 1211 of 2010(S) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 3.10.2006 OF THE PETITIONER TO DEPUTY DIRECTOR, SB, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXT.P2 : COPY OF ORDER DATED 22.6.2006 OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF SUBSIDARY SIBI, TRIVANDRUM. EXT.P3 : COPY OF PETITION DATED 15.12.2008 OF THE PETITIONER TO THE JOINT DIRECTOR, SIB TRIVANDRUM. EXT.P4 : COPY OF OA NO. 786/2010. EXT.P5 : COPY OF ORDER DATED 15.9.2010 IN OA NO. 786/2010 OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. EXT.P6 : COPY OF REPLY STATEMENT OF THE RESPONDENTS IN OA NO. 786/2010. EXT.P7 : COPY OF ORDER DATED 8.11.2010 IN OA NO. 786/2010 OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL. EXT.P8 : COPY OF ORDER DATED 19/11/2010 IN OA NO. 786/2010 OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS - NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Mn A.K. BASHEER & P.Q. BARKATH ALI,JJ. ........................................... O.P.(CAT).NO.1211 OF 2010 ............................................. Dated this the 23rd day of February, 2011. J U D G M E N T Basheer, J: Petitioner, who is serving in the Intelligence Burueau in an Executive Cadre, challenged the order of his transfer from Pathanamthitta to Vythiri in Wayanad district before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam. According to him, he was not liable to be transferred on the verge of his retirement and particularly for the reason that he had been suffering from “chronic lumbago”. 2. The respondents contended before the Tribunal that his transfer was necessitated due to administrative exigencies and it was in strict conformity with the norms of transfer. The Tribunal after considering the rival contentions of the parties dismissed the original petition. The above order is impugned before us. 3. When this case was taken up for consideration on February 7, 2011, we directed the petitioner to assume charge at Vythiri in Wayanad as ordered by his employer. However, : 2 : O.P.(CAT).NO.1211 OF 2010 we made it clear that it would be open to the petitioner to avail of leave on medical grounds, if he was so advised. Since it was submitted by the petitioner that he intended to retire from service voluntarily, we directed him to make such a request before the authority concerned through proper channel. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents before this Court it had been conceded that the petitioner “is eligible for voluntary retirement by giving three months' notice and it can be granted as provided under CSS Rules”. 5. Learned Assistant Solicitor General submitted before us on the last hearing date that the request for voluntary retirement, if submitted, would be duly processed and considered in accordance with law and the Rules governing in the field. 6. Ms. Asha Elizebath Mathew, who appears for the respondents, submits that an application seeking voluntary retirement has been in fact received by the department and that it is being processed. She further submits that an : 3 : O.P.(CAT).NO.1211 OF 2010 appropriate decision in the matter will be taken without any further delay, of course in accordance with the relevant rules and procedure. She prays that some reasonable time may be granted to pass appropriate orders on the said application. 7. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances, we direct the authority concerned to take a decision on the application submitted by the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. If in case any defect is noted in the application or if the petitioner is bound to make available any further information or data, sufficient opportunity shall be afforded to the petitioner to do so. In other words the application shall not be rejected on technical grounds without hearing the petitioner. The original petition is disposed of in the above terms. A.K. BASHEER, JUDGE. P.Q. BARKATH ALI,JUDGE. : 4 : O.P.(CAT).NO.1211 OF 2010 cl : 5 : O.P.(CAT).NO.1211 OF 2010