Applicant has challenged annexure A-1 dated 16.1.2004 vide which he has been promoted as Pay & Accounts Officer (P&AO) in scale Rs.7500-250-12000 and posted in the CBEC, Ranchi against a newly created post. Applicant has been on deputation with All India Radio (AIR). AIR had asked for applicants retention on deputation in public interest with the AIR, but on applicants approval for promotion as P&AO, respondents have chosen to post him at Ranchi.
2. The learned counsel of applicant contended that respondents have arbitrarily, discriminately and illegally posted the applicant outside Delhi while adjusting applicants juniors at Delhi. He submitted that in accordance with the transfer policy of the respondents, while they obtained options from others including juniors who had been approved for promotion, for placement, they did not obtain applicants option for posting. Applicant has specifically mentioned the names of Shri G.K.Bahl and Ms. Veena Anand who have been retained in Delhi in preference to the applicant, who is senior to them and whose option for retention in Delhi had not been obtained by the respondents in accordance with the transfer policy. The learned counsel also relied upon order dated 20.8.2004 in OA No.1826/2004 : K.S.Bhatia v. Union of India, wherein in similar circumstances, the following orders were made : 9. In the present case ends of justice will be met if the applicant is asked for his preference for posting and he be accommodated in his order of preference against vacancies that are available or likely to arise in the next six months from the date of issue of this order as per rules and law.
3. The learned counsel of respondents admitted that no option had been called for, for placement on promotion from the applicant. However, the respondents have no objection in giving him an opportunity to opt for station(s) of his choice. The respondents would consider this option and pass fresh order after considering applicants option.
4. I have considered the rival contentions. Annexure A-4 dated 20.3.2003 contains respondents transfer policy. It states, the promotion and allocation orders to various Ministries/Departments as Jr. Accounts Officer and Pay and Accounts Officer are issued by this office after taking into account the options of the empanelled officials for their preferred stations of posting even though Recruitment Rules provide for All India Transfer Liability. This circular also includes the following decisions of the respondents : (1) In respect of vacancies that are projected to arise during a given period an equal number of empanelled officials will be asked to give preferences for posting on promotion to any number of stations of their choice. In the absence of preference(s) an individuals willingness for posting to any station will be presumed. The concerned officials will be accommodated at one of the stations of their choice to the extent that is administratively possible. In case it is not possible to accommodate their preference they will be posted compulsorily at any station as per the administrative convenience under clause of All India Transfer Liability which is a condition of service in the Civil Accounts Organisation. (2) The promotions/transfers will be done strictly on the basis of seniority in the panel.
5. Annexure A-2 is the seniority list of the cadre of Assistant Accounts Officers. While applicants name appears at Sl. No.221, those of Ms. Veena Anand and Shri G.K.Bahl appear at Sl. Nos.223 and 233. As such, they are decidedly junior to the applicant. It has not been denied by the respondents that while they had asked for option for placement on promotion from other candidates, such option was not called for from the applicant. This is absolutely arbitrary and discriminatory. In their counter, respondents have also expressed their no objection in giving the applicant an opportunity to opt for stations of his choice and pass fresh orders after considering his option. In similar circumstances, in the matter of K.S.Bhatia (supra) the applicant had been accorded relief as stated above. In the facts and circumstances obtaining in the present case and in the interest of justice, applicant is entitled to the relief claimed in the following terms : (1) Annexure A-1 dated 16.1.2004 is quashed to the extent it posts the applicant in CBEC, Ranchi, i.e., outside Delhi. (2) Respondents shall obtain applicants option for posting and consider his placement as Pay & Accounts Officer strictly in terms of his seniority and keeping in view the option to be exercised by him. In case the applicant opts for a posting in Delhi, he should be considered for such posting against vacancies that are available or likely to arise in the next six months from the date of issue of these orders, as per law, relevant rules and instructions.
6. The OA is allowed in the above terms. ( V. K. Majotra ) Vice-Chairman (A) /as/