DR ANITA KUMARI v. LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT (MS)

whereb Annexu Annexu transfer commo

directio before

2. The fa content

3. With c disposa decide

4. By way Act 19

883 of

figuring the name of applicant at internal page

5. Shorn applica post of Applica transfer

30.05.2

four ye submit exempt

4 OA No. /051/883/23, 884/23 & 885/2023 y Grievances Redressal Comm re A-1 in all OAs and impugn re-A-3 has been passed by re order Annexure A-1 in cases. Th n impugned orders Annexure

ns to allow applicants to contin effecting transfers.

cts involved in all these three ca ions and pleadings being one and s onsent of learned counsel for both l and facts are extracted from le identical cases.

of present OA filed under Section 85, applicant sought main relief(s 2023) reads as:-

"(i) To quash and set aside the Office Order No.65/2023 issued 20.05.2023 as contained in Annexure A/1 qua applicant issued under the signature of Respondent No.5 figuring the name of applicant at Sl. No.399 whereby she ha

ESIC Hospital, Namkom, Ranchi to ESIC Hospital, Rourkela.

(ii) To declare the Report of Grievance Redressed Committee issued under the signature of Respondent No.4 dated 11.10.2023 as contained in Annexure A/2 qua applicant as null, void, non- speaking and in violation of Transfer Policy itself.

(iii) To quash and set aside the Office Order No.127/2023 issued 10.11.2023 as contained in Annexure A/3 qua applicant issued under the signature of Respondent No.5 applicant from ESIC Hospital, Namkom, Ranchi to ESIC Hospital, Rourkela has been issued finally.

(iv) To allow the applicant to continue at ESIC Hospital, Namkom, Ranchi without any disturbance.

(v) To award cost in favour of the applicant and pass any order Hon'ble Tribunal may deem just and equitable in the facts and circumstances of the case."

of unnecessary details the briefly

nt in lead case OA No. 883/2023

C.M.O. and was posted at ES

nt is at Ranchi since year 201

posting policy for medical a

022 (Annexure A-4) for general d

ars of regular service in ESIC in

options for transfer and Para 8.

ion and special weightage in consideration

ittee had upheld transfer order

ed final order dated 10.11.2023

spondent no.5 upholding initial

us applicant seeking quashment of

A-1, A-2 & A-3 and seeking

ue at original places of posting

ses are almost similar, grounds,

ame.

sides cases are taken up for final

ad case OA No. 883 of 2023 to

19 of Administrative Tribunals,

) (as extracted from the OA No.

s been order to be transferred from

- 12, Sl.No.399 whereby transfer of

/orders which this

stated facts as adumbrated by

that applicant is working on the

IC Hospital, Namkom, Ranchi.

5. The respondents have issued dministrative post in ESIC on uty medical officer with minimum cadre of IMO and Para 8 deals to 2, table III & IV for criteria of of transfer/posting as per

4

DoPT Redres ESIC/R posting officers perform also is transfer of A.G circular post. The ESIC f

6. Applica Professor Jharkha from E

impugn

dated 3 station, age as

spouse. dated 1 applica circular

30.03.2

7. The im respond wherea

vitiated grievan for resp 9 not c

5 OA No. /051/883/23, 884/23 & 885/2023 instructions. So also Para 12 sal Committee and competent espondent no. 2. Subsequently, t of Doctors in ESIC has been i , i.e. GD MOS, Specialist, Sup ing non-administrative/clinical fu sued two circulars on 27.12.2 /posting for clinical posting to me .T. policy year 2023, para 4 optio dated 27.12.2022 respect of opt applicant submitted preference or-

(1) ESIC Model Hospital Namkom

(2) R.O. Ranchi.

(3) ECBO, Hazaribagh

(4) ESIC Hospital Adityapur

(5) ESIC Model Hospital Rourkela nt has also stated that husband of in Deptt. of Pathology in RIM nd on non-transferrable post. Th SIC Hospital, Namkom, Ranchi ed transfer order Annexure-A-1, 0.09.2009 by DoPT, husband an three daughters aged 11, 7 & 3 per the OM applicant to be post The ESIC issued impugned Griev 1.10.2023 and upheld the impugne nt posted for 12 years at Ranc s, whereas applicant promoted

021.

pugned transfer orders Annexure ent no.2/Chairman, who is the s impugned order Annexure A-1 h

. The Grievance Redressal Com ces accordance with terms and cri ondents to follow it. Representati onsidered in consonance with ow and 14 provides for Grievance authority is Chairman,

ransfer posting policy for clinical ssued on 20.06.2022 for medical er Specialist, teaching faculties, nction referred to as doctor. ESIC 022 in respect of option for dical administrative post in Para 4 n to apply for clinical posting and ion for posting on administrative of choice stations online portal of

.

applicant is working as Associate S, Ranchi under Government of e applicant has been transferred to ESIC Hospital, Rourkela vide contrary to transfer policy, OM d wife are to be posted at same years and till they attain 18 years ed at Ranchi, place of posting of ance Redressal Committee report d transfer order Annexure-A-1 of hi ignoring transfer policy and as CMO vide order dated

A-1 & A-2 are not approved by competent authority for transfer, as been approved by D.G., hence mittee not considered genuine teria of transfer policy mandatory on dated 23.05.2023 Annexure A- n transfer policy and DoPT, OM

5

dated 3 tenure contrar applica to cont order d the OA transfer at Ranc

8. This Tr of inter No.883

respect last six arising on 18.1

9. The ap

23.11.2

No. 73 decided dismiss ESIC t decide

10. Per co applica Applicants Adityp

transfer Hon'bl

Educat

transfer

11. Shri M have co After s will be to resp OA No

6 OA No. /051/883/23, 884/23 & 885/2023 0.09.2009 (Annexure-A-8). Appli of 9 years clinical posting and no y to criteria for transfer, arbitrar nt she has been discriminated and inue by pick-and-choose method ated 10.11.2023 (Annexure A-3) to set-aside impugned orders bein policy and allow applicant to co hi.

ibunal vide interim orders dated 23 im order in all these cases. So al of 2023 and 884 of 2023 pos ively. So also in OA No.885/2023 years and Chennai Bench of this out of same impugned transfer or

0.2023.

plicants here in present batch case 023 before Hon'ble High Court 03 of 2023, 7343 of 2023 and the writ petitions vide comm ed upholding the interim orders d o file WS and ESIC should not t the issue on same date on its own m ntra, respondents no. 2 to 8/ESI nts have all India transfer liability had been working since 10.06.2015 ur and since 10.11.2016 at Adity orders are justified. So also transfer e High Court Orissa in Akshya K ion 1991 Lab IC 20/90 (Ori DB not available where husband and .P. Dixit, learned counsel for all ap mplied the transfer orders, joined ome arguments, Shri M.P. Dixit s satisfied if liberty is granted to a ondent no.2 to consider in light of

. 310, 503, 504, 506 to 513 and 52 cant has not completed minimum complaint for any public interest, ily made to transfer. In case of similarly placed officers allowed on spouse grounds but impugned issued to comply orders. Hence, g contrary to criteria prescribed in ntinue at original place of posting .11.2023 rejected prayer for grant so observed that applicant in OA ted at Ranchi for last 12 years observed posted at Adityapur for Tribunal in OA No. 475 of 2023 der has dismissed the similar OA s challenged interim orders dated of Jharkhand at Ranchi in WP(s) 7395 of 2023. Their Lordships on order dated 17.01.2024 and ated 23.11.2023. So also directed ake adjournment and Tribunal to erit.

C has filed WS and stated that and transfer orders are justified. at Ranchi, 12.02.2010 at

apur respectively and impugned policy not been violated, umar Berua Vs. Director Higher ) held that plea of separation by wife are not under same master. plicants submitted that applicants and working at place of transfer. ubmits at the Bar that applicants pplicants to submit representation order dated 16.05.2024 passed in 4 to 526 of 2024 Dr. G. Sugapriya

6

& othe Tribunal of 2023

12. Shri As for res

interference limited

and the

right to

13. Heard record.

14. This is exercis

15. So also regardi

transfer

"1. SC 1955 the Apex Court has held as under:

"5…If the power is exercised mala fide, then obviously the order of transfer is liable to be struck down. They relied on the observations made by this Court in E.P. Royappa

(AIR 1974 SC 555) for the positivistic view that 'equality is antithetic to arbitrariness' and held that the observations equally apply to the policy regarding the transfer of public servants. It was observed:

service. It is also an implied condition of service and appointing authority has a wide discretion in the matter. The Government is the best judge to decide how to distribute and utilise the se

must be exercised honestly, bona, fide and reasonably. It should be exercised in public, interest. If the exercise of power is based on extraneous considerations or for achieving an alien purpose or an oblique mo would amount to mala fide and colourable exercise of power. transfers, without sufficient reasons to justify such transfers cannot but be held as in fide. A transfer is mala fide when it is made not for professed purpose, such as in normal

the exigencies of service but for other purpose than is to accommodate another person for undisclosed reasons.

and good administration, that even administrative

fair.

The observation that transfer is also an implied condition of service is just an observation in passing. It certainly cannot be relied upon in support of the contention that an order of transfer

Government servant, any of his conditions of service making the impugned order appealable under R. 19(1)(a) of the Rules.

7 OA No. /051/883/23, 884/23 & 885/2023 rs Vs. UOI & others by Coord seisin with cases pursuant to tran dated 20.05.2023.

hutosh Anand, learned counsel wi pondent no. 2 to 8/ESIC vociferously in transfer matters in exercise

. The applicants have already joine re is no question of relating back continue at place of own choice. learned counsel for the parties and a trite law that scope of judicial e of power of judicial review is lim

(i) Transfer is issue of violation

(ii) Malafide exercise of power.

(iii) Transfer is without jurisdict Hon'ble Supreme Court in cate ng scope of judicial review by T , for ready reference reads as unde In B. Varadha Rao v. State of Karnataka —

v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1974)

"It is an accepted principle that in public service transfer is an incident of rvices of its employees.

course or in public or administrative interest or in

It is the basic principle of rule of law

"

ipso facto inate Bench at Chennai of this sfer order vide office order no. 62 th Shri Shahbaj Akhtar, Advocate canvassed that judicial

of power of judicial review is d and working at place of transfer

. Applicants have no vested legal perused the material available on interference in transfer matters in ited-

of statutory rules.

ion.

na of judgments expressed view ribunal/Courts in the matters of r:-

, (1986) 4 SCC 131 : AIR 1986

4 SCC 3 : (1974) 2 SCR 348 :

However this power

tive it

Frequent

actions should be just and varies to the disadvantage of a

7

6. One cannot but deprecate that frequent, unscheduled and unreasonable transfers can uproot a family, cause irreparab

and drive him to desperation It disrupts the education of his children and leads to numerous other complications and problems and results in hardship and demoralisation. It therefore follows that the policy of transfer shoul reasonable and fair and should apply to everybody equally. But, at the same time., it cannot be forgotten that so far as superior or more responsible posts are concerned, continued posting at one station or in one department of the Government is not c

and therefore we find that even from the British times the general policy has been to restrict the period of posting for a definite period. We wish to add that the position of Class III and Class

that the Government will keep these considerations in view while making an order of transfer."

2. In Mrs. Shilpi Bose 532 their Lordships have ruled

"4. are made in public interest and for administrative reasons unless the transfer orders are made in violation of any mandatory statutory rule or on the ground of mala fid

to remain posted at one place or the other, he is liable to be transferred from one place to the other.

violate any of his lega

executive instructions or orders, the Courts ordinarily should not interfere with the order instead affected party should approach the higher authorities in the Department.

issued by the Government and its subordinate authorities, there will be complete chaos in the Administration which would not be conducive to public interest. The High Court overlooked these aspects in interferi

3. In Rajendra Roy then- Lordships of the Apex Court have ruled thus:

"7…. It is true that the order of transfer often causes a lot of difficulties and dislocation in the

order of transfer is not liable to be struck down. Unless such order is passed mala fide or in violation of the rules of service and guidelines for transfer without any proper justification, th

order of transfer. In a transferable post an order of transfer is a normal consequence and personal difficulties are matters for consideration of the department We are in agreement with the Central Adm

the appellant has not been able to lay any firm foundation to substantiate the case of malice or mala fide against the respondents in passing the impugned order of transfer. It does not appear to us that the appellant has been mov rid of him and the impugned order of transfer was passed mala fide by seizing an opportunity to transfer Shri Patra to Orissa from Calcutta. possible to establish malice in fact in a straight

case, it is possible to draw reasonable inference of mala fide action from the pleadings and antecedent facts and circumstances. But for such inference there must be firm foundation of facts pleaded and established. Such inference cannot be drawn on

unable to draw any inference of mala fide action in transferring the appellant from the facts pleaded before the Tribunal."

4. The Apex Court in SC 2444 has expressed the view as under:

"7. Who should be transferred where, is a matter for the appropriate authority to decide.

made in violation of any statutory provisions,

While ordering the transfer, there is no doubt, the authority must keep in mind the guidelines issued by the Government on the subject. Similarly if a person makes any representation with respect to his transfer, the app

consider the same having regard to the exigencies of administration.

8 OA No. /051/883/23, 884/23 & 885/2023 onducive to good administration. It creates. vested interest IV employees stand on a different footing. We trust

v. State of Bihar, 1991 Supp (2) SCC 659 : AIR 1991 SC thus:—

In our opinion, the courts should not interfere with a transfer order which e. A Government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right Transfer orders issued by the competent authority do not l rights. Even if a transfer order is passed in violation of If the courts continue to interfere with day

v. Union of India, (1993) 1 SCC 148 : AIR 1993 SC 1236 family set up of the concerned employees but on that score the e Court and the Tribunal should not interfere with the the basis of insinuation and vague suggestions Union of India v. S.L. Abbas

—

Unless the order of transfer is vitiated by mala fides or is le harm to a Government servant

d be

-to-day transfer orders

ng with the transfer orders,"

inistrative Tribunal that

ed out just to get

It may not be always

-cut manner. In an appropriate

, In this case, we are

, (1993) 4 SCC 357 : AIR 1993

the Court cannot interfere with it. ropriate authority must

The

8

guidelines say that as far as possible, husband and wife must be posted at the same place. The said guideline however does not confer upon the Government employee a legally enforceable right.

8. xx xxxx

9. Shri Goswami, learned counsel for the respondent relies upon the decision of this Court in

1992 SCW 170) rendered by a Bench of which one of us (J.S. Verma, J.) was a member. On a perusal of the judgment, we do not think it supports the respondent in any manner. It is observed therein (para 5 of AIR):

husband and wife who are both employed should be posted at the same station even if their employers be different. The desirability of such a course is obvious. However, this does not mean that their place of posting should invariably be one of their choice, even though their preference, may be taken into account while making the decision in accordance with the administrative needs. In the case of all

being posted at differen

when they belong to different services and one of them cannot be transferred to the place of the other's posting. While choosing the career and a particular service, the couple have to bear in mind this f

such a hardship if the administrative needs and transfer policy do not permit the posting of both at one place without sacrifice of the requirements of the administration and needs of other employees. In such a case the couple to make their choice at the threshold between career prospects and family life. After giving preference to the career prospects by accepting such a promotion or any appointment in an all

place in Ind

station, they cannot as of right claim to be relieved of the ordinary incidents of all

the spouses thereby would be pos

guideline requires the two spouses to be posted at one place as far as practicable, but that does not enable any spouse to claim such a posting as of right if the departmental authorities do not consider it feasible. required is that the departmental authorities should consider this aspect along with the exigencies of administration and enable the two spouses to live together at one station if it is possible without any detriment to the administrative nee

5. In the case of the Apex Court has expressed the view in the following terms:

worked at Jagdalpur from 1982 to 1989 and when he was transferred to Bhopal, there was no justification to retransfer him again to Jagdalpur. We cannot appreciate these grounds. The cou

forums to decide on transfers of officers on administrative grounds. The wheel so fad ministration should be allowed to run smoothly and the courts or tribunals are not expected to interdict the working of the administrat system by transferring the officers to proper places.

administration to take appropriate decision and such decisions shall stand unless they are vitiated either by mala fides or by extraneous consideration without any factual background f

the administrative grounds the transfer orders came to be issued. Therefore, we cannot go into the expediency of posting an officer at a particular place.

5. xx xxxx

6. It is further contended that in an unfortu committed suicide leaving three children and he would suffer extreme hardship if he has to work in the tribal area.

relative hardship. It would be for the administration to con given case and mitigate the real hardship in the interest of good and efficient administration

9 OA No. /051/883/23, 884/23 & 885/2023 Bank of Bank Of India v. Jagjit Singh Mehta .

"There can be no doubt that ordinaril -India services, the hardship resulting from the two t stations may be unavoidable at times particularly -India service with the incident of transfer to any ia, subordinating the need of the couple living together at one -India service and avoid transfer to a different place on the ground that ted at different places……

ds and the claim of other employees."

State of M.P. v. S.S. Kourav

"4. It is contended for the respondent that the respondent had already oundation

This Court cannot go into that question of

. If there is any such hardship, it would be open to the respondent

, (1992) 1 SCC 306 : (AIR

—

y and as far as practicable the actor and be prepared to face have

No doubt the

The only thing

, (1995) 3 SCC 270 in paragraph 4, —

rts or tribunals are not appellate ive

It is for the

, In this case we have seen that on nate situation the respondent's wife sider the facts of a

9

to make a representation to the Government and it is for the Government t consider and take appropriate decision in that behalf."

6. In State of U.P.

"5. The High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India (in short the 'Cons

to whether the transfer was in the interest of public service. That would essentially require factual adjudication and invariably depend upon peculiar facts and circumstances of the case concerned. No Government serv a public undertaking has any legal right to be posted forever at any one particular place or place of his choice since transfer of a particular employee appointed to the class or category of transferable posts from one place to other is not only an incident, but a condition of service, necessary too in public interest and efficiency in the public administration.

to be an outcome of mala fide exercise or stated to be in violation of statutory provisions

cannot interfere with such orders as a matter of routine, as though they were the appellate authorities substi

employer/management, as against s

administrative exigencies of the service concerned

by this Court in

Bhagwan

6. The above position was recently; hi India v.

Court proceeded on the basis as if the transfer was connected with the departmental proceedings. There was not an iota of material to arrive at the conclusion. No mala fides could be attributed as the order was purely on administrative grounds and in public interest.

7. In view of the settled position in law the judgment of the High Court is indefensible and is set aside."

16. Now a cases in on prom on 30.0

10.06.2

30.03.2

applica Hospita and pla dated 1 station posted transfer serving India tr administrative Commi

10 OA No. /051/883/23, 884/23 & 885/2023

v. Siyaram, (2004) 7 SCC 405 it has been held as under:

titution) had gone into the question as Unless an order of transfer as shown

pro-hibiting any such transfer, the Courts or the Tribunals normally -tuting their own decision for that of the

uch orders passed in the interest of

National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd.

((2001) 8 SCC 574).

Janardhan Debanath ((2004) 4 SCC 245). It has to be noted that the High pplying the aforesaid settled lega

hand. Applicant in OA No. 883 o

otion to post of IMO, Grade II at

3.2012 and further promoted to I

015, further promoted to the po

021 and posted as CMO at ESIC

nt has already completed more t

l at Ranchi. The options were ca

ced before Grievance Redressal C

1.10.2023 has recommended that

for last 12 years and not recom

applicant medical officer within

policy with all India transfer liab

in autonomous organization unde

ansfer liability and posted at Ranc

exigencies in public

ttee applied same yardsticks in cl

o

—

ant or employee of

. This position was highlighted

v. Shri ghlighted in Union of [Emphasis supplied] l position to the facts of present f 2023, Dr. Anita Kumari, posted ESIC, Hospital Namkom, Ranchi MO Grade-I joined at Ranchi on st of Chief Medical Officer on Hospital, Namkom, Ranchi. The han 12 years of service at ESIC lled for Annual General Transfer ommittee and GRC vide report applicant is posted at the current mended. The respondents have zone accordance with para 3 of ility. So also husband of applicant r RIMS and applicant is having all hi for more than 12 years and on interest. Grievance Redressal inical posting of doctors normally

10

before Office insured service has already her ow

at place will no

17. As evid Mithles

ESIC H

at Adit and pr posted posted transfer from A applica public Adityap issued Hospita applica of relat Grievance to file r law.

18. So far Induran

10.11.2

Adityap Hospita at Adit in publ within Para 3. Redres

11 OA No. /051/883/23, 884/23 & 885/2023 a period of six years. So also to im System ESIC to implement such person and women for equal d s in public interest impugned transfer been relieved and joined at E n 5^thpreference for transfer. In op of transfer at ESIC Hospital Rou t arise and there is no merit in the p ent from material placed on recor h Kumar Singh has been transfer ospital Adityapur to Ranchi. The yapur on 12.02.2010 as IMO-Gra omoted as CMO w.e.f. 12.02.20 at CMO at ESIC Hospital, Adit for more than 14 years at ESI red to Ranchi on own 3^rdpreference dityapur with all India transfer a nt also in service under Uraniu sector enterprise and applicant wa ur in public interest in need o same is justified. In present case l Ranchi on own 3^rdpreference nt is construction by estoppel and ing back will not arise. Since applicant Redressal Committee before fi epresentation before competent au as applicant in OA No. 885 of 202 ce Medical Officer Grade-I has 016 as IMO-Grade II, promoted ur. Now vide impugned transf l Adityapur to DCBO Daltonganj yapuar in consonance with transfe ic interest on administrative urgenc state of Jharkhand, with all India 2 of transfer policy. Applicant c sal Committee and report dated 1 plement Dispensary-cum-Branch beneficial policies to treat more istribution of doctors to provide orders issued. The applicant SIC Hospital, Rourkela and it was inion of this Tribunal after joining rkela the question of relating back resent OAs.

d that in OA No. 884 of 2023 Dr. red to 3^rdpreference choice from applicant joined at ESIC Hospital de II, promoted as IMO-Grade I 19 vide order dated 13.09.2021 yapur. Undisputedly applicant is C Hospital, Adityapur and now choice station within 150 km s condition of service, spouse of m Corporation of India Limited s posted for more than 13 years at f administration impugned order also applicant has joined at ESIC of choice station the stand of after joining at Ranchi, question has not approached before ling present OA, liberty is granted thority to decide accordance with

3 Dr. Pashupati Nath Priyadarshi, joined at ESIC, Adityapur on as IMO-Grade I and continued at er order transferred from ESIC after more than 7 years of posting r policy. The respondent authority y at vacant place posted applicant transfer liability as stipulated in ase was placed before Grievance 1.10.2023 not recommended case

11

of appl more t administrative System

applica

19. Counse Coordi

463,47

of Ind directed admini grievan dismiss

20. Shri M dated 1

2024, D

order d after co within till resp High C

careful counse

Assista Hon'bl

21. But it applica case. R Suprem

Tamil

which r p

12 OA No. /051/883/23, 884/23 & 885/2023 icant and upheld transfer order. han six years of posting at A exigencies to implement

for equal distribution of doctors to nt has been transferred in accordant l for respondent Shri Ashutosh nate Bench of this Tribunal, 5,492,493 and 578 of 2023 Dr. S. ia vide order dated 18.10.2023 applicants to report to duties a stration by serving in exigencie ces pending before the Grievance ed the OAs and present cases on h .P. Dixit, learned counsel for appli 6.05.2024 passed in OA No.503, 5 r. G. Sugapriya and others Ver ated 16.05.2024 directed respond nsidering all the clauses of transfe a period of one month from date o ondents passes a speaking order ourt of Madras and disposed of ly gone through the above cited order l for ESIC also submits that cases nt Professors and order dated 16. e High Court of Madras.

is settled position of law that tion rather the judgment is to be t eference in this regard be made to e Court in the case of Dr. Subra Nadu and others, (2014) 5 SCC eads as under-

"47. It is a settled legal proposition t understood in the background of the fac authority for what it actually decides, an court should not place reliance on decis situation fits in with the fact situation laced."

Applicant has already completed dityapur and has transferred in Disciplinary-cum-Branch Office provide services to beneficiaries, with transfer policy.

Anand, much emphasized that

Bench at Chennai in OA No.

Shobhana & others Versus Union has vacated interim orders and t the transferred place to support s, with liberty to pursue with Redressal Committee and

and relates to medical officers. cants also placed reliance on order 04, 506 to 513 and 524 to 526 of sus Union of India decided vide ents to redo the transfer exercise r policy, including priority matrix f this order and permit to continue as per the direction of Hon'ble all the OAs. This Tribunal has

. Shri Ashutosh Anand, learned cited by Mr. M.P. Dixit relate to 05.2024 has been assailed before judgment has got no universal ested on the basis of facts of each the judgment rendered of Hon'be maniam Swamy Versus State of

75. The relevant paragraph 47, hat the ratio of any decision must be ts of that case and the case is only an d not what logically follows from it. The ion without discussing as to how factual of the decision on which reliance is [Emphasis Supplied]

12

22. Now p Sugapr

Coordi

of Associate dated 1

in WP

03.11.2

Redres accorda 506 to in Dr. at Chen conside Redres under t case of properly In spite failed t by awa maxim

Coordi passed accorda (Priorit Profess transfer period Hon'bl

23. Hon'bl in (200

13 OA No. /051/883/23, 884/23 & 885/2023 roceeding to examine factual as iya Versus Union of India (su nate Bench of this Tribunal at Che Professors filed OAs and

8.10.2023 and preferred appeal befor Nos. 31570, 31592 of 2023. The H 023 remitted the issue back to sal Committee to consider the re nce with law. Thereafter applica 513 and 524 to 526 of 2024 and d G. Sugapriya (supra). The cases nai and before Hon'ble High Cou red cases accordance with policy sal Committee (TGRC) and viol he policy and then only final orders applicants before Hon'ble High weightage points as required by of direction in cases by Hon'ble o detail the consideration of the pr rding weightage points for each um weightage points for vari nate Bench at Chennai answered by respondents in respect of Hon'b nce with consideration of weight y Matrix) of transfer policy d ors. The Tribunal directed resp considering clauses of transfer p of one month by passing a spe e High Court of Madras.

e Supreme Court in Nair Service

9) 5 SCC 545. Relevant paragraph 48 reads as

" 48…..Several decisions have been cite well established that judgments in servi with reference to the particular service ru pects as was in case of Dr. G. pra) decided on 16.05.2024 by

nnai. The matter related to transfer same were dismissed vide order e Hon'ble Madras High Court

on'ble High Court by order dated the file of transfer to Grievance presentations of the applicants in nts again filed OA No.503, 504, ecided by order dated 16.05.2024 before learned Coordinate Bench rt of Madras that respondents not before Transfer Grievance

ative of procedure as mandated from competent authority. The

Court of Madras was to consider Annexure-1 of the transfer policy. High Court of Madras the TGRC

iority categories from Annexure-I criteria without determining the ous criteria. Thus the learned issue related to whether order le High Court of Madras and is in age marks related to Annexure-1 ated 20.06.2022 for Associate

ondents to redo the exercise of olicy as priority matrix within a aking order as per direction of Society Vs. Dr. T. Beer Masthan :-

d before us by the respondents, but it is ce jurisprudence should be understood les in the state governing that field."

[Emphasis Supplied]

13

24. But he pursuan to clini examination challenge OAs ha

before

2023, 7

order dated 17.01.2024 Tribuna

in light

these c

Sugapr

distingu

peculia

not rec

25. Applica places

relating and co

proposi

cited h

have f

malafid

interference

26. This T origina

27. Any pe

28. Applica back w

representation needles

bp/-

14 OA No. /051/883/23, 884/23 & 885/2023 re cases in hand relates to office t to Annual General Transfer for cal posts pursuant to Medical Tran of grievances by TGRC al

. This Tribunal vide interim or s rejected the prayer for interim Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhan 303 of 2023 and 7343 of 2023. dismissed aforesa

l to decide cases on merits. This of settled legal position in cases ases. Therefore with great respect iya & others (supra) decided ishable on facts and policy appl r facts of these cases as TGRC a ommended cases, upholding orders nts in this batch of case has alr of posting and already joined at back will not arise. So also in view nsidering entirety of facts and tions settled by catena of judgm erein above, this Tribunal is of th ailed to establish that transfer is e exercise of power or withou is made out.

ribunal does not find any merit l applications are dismissed. No or nding Misc. Application(s), if any, nts have already joined at place o ill not arise. However liberty before competent authorit s to say same shall be decided in a order no. 65 of year 2023 issued the Transfer year-2023 for posting sfer Policy dated 20.06.2022 and ready issued and also was under ders dated 23.11.2023 in all three relief. The applicants approached d at Ranchi in WP No. 7295 of Their Lordships vide common id writ petitions and directed this Tribunal has considered the cases of transfer and finds no merit in the order passed in case of Dr. G. vide order dated 16.05.2024 is icable and has no applicability in lready considered grievances and of transfer of doctors.

eady been relieved from original place of transfer and question of of reasons stated herein above circumstances in light of legal ents of Hon'ble Supreme Court e considered view that applicants in violation of statutory rules, t jurisdiction and no case for in the OAs and present all the der as to cost.

shall also stands closed. f transfer and question of relating is granted to applicants to file y and if representations are filed ccordance with law.

(Ajay Pratap Singh)

Judicial Member.

Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench,

At Ranchi Circuit Bench.

14