Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2015 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (9) TMI 918 - DELHI HIGH COURTMaintenance of seniority - writ petitioner challenges the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal (‘‘CAT’’) dated 14-8-2012 - The petitioners contend that there is no legal basis for the repatriation order, and that it is contrary to the DoPT OM of 3-4-1986. Moreover, the repatriation order violated both the July 2011 CAT order as well as the order of the Delhi High Court in that the CBEC did not consult the DoPT. Finally, the petitioner submits that the repatriation order was premature in that the issue was pending before the DoPT and the CBEC pursuant to the orders of the CAT and the Delhi High Court. The petitioner ever had made a representation on 8-2-2012 to the CBEC that the repatriation order be withdrawn, on this basis. Held that:- save and except the plea of seniority, which affected the aggrieved employees of the Ernakulam Commissionerate (an issue which was to be finally settled by the DoPT), there was no question of any cloud on the CBEC’s authority to frame policies. There is also no dispute that in terms of the 2009 circular, the petitioner was transferred to Delhi; the circular issued in 2011 clarified that she would not secure any seniority. Given these circumstances, the findings of the CAT cannot be sustained. There cannot be any quarrel with the general proposition that in matters of transfer, judicial intervention is ordinarily not called for. At the same time, the Courts have underlined that wherever existing rules or regulations having statutory force are involved, the right of the employee to be considered in the context of those rules has to prevail. In the present case, the 2009 circular as well as the subsequent 2011 circular, in between which the petitioner was transferred to Delhi, did not disqualify her from seeking an ICT. A subsequent circular dated 15-2-2012, almost three years after her joining of service, barring gazetted Group-B officers from seeking such ICT, could not, therefore, be a valid reason to repatriate her, in effect, a denial of a right that vested in her in 2009. - Decided in favor of appellant.
|