om:88-cl-2020-july — Applicant herein, an Office Assistant, Divisional Office of Tirur Postal Department was transferred number of times in lieu of punishment, which is not tenable and considering the fact that she is to retire shortly. The case of her transfer as a punishment is untenable as held in the case of Somesh Tiwari v. Union of India and others [ 2009 (2) SCC 592 ]

FRSR

Applicant herein, an Office Assistant, Divisional Office of Tirur Postal Department was transferred number of times in lieu of punishment, which is not tenable and considering the fact that she is to retire shortly. The case of her transfer as a punishment is untenable as held in the case of Somesh Tiwari v. Union of India and others [ 2009 (2) SCC 592 ] — The chunk discusses a decision in the case Smt. P.P. Prathibha v. Director-General of Posts and others where the transfer of an Office Assistant was ruled as illegal and punitive, citing the judgment... — Facts : Applicant, a widow, presently working as Office Assistant, Divisional Office at Tirur under Postal Department is aggrieved by her transfer (A/1) before completion of her tenure. Applicant joined as a Postal Assistant with effect from 19-1-1985. She had been granted TBOP, BCR and also 3rd MACP upgradation. She was transferred number of times even though there is ruling in Postal Department that a transfer can be ordered only after serving 3 years in the place of posting. Applicant who is 34 years of service and due to retire shortly is transferred number of times without caring for the ruling of the department in transfer cases. The action of the Superintendent of Post Office, Tirur Division, R-3 herein, transferring now is questioned in violation of Transfer Policy which is enclosed at A/3 which is illegal and arbitrary submits the Applicant. Respondent states that Postal Assistants are liable to be transferred. Applicant herein is transferred in public interest. Approval for her transfer had been obtained from Postmaster-General, Northern Region, Calicut. Transfer of the Applicant for the last 10 years is tabulated. Applicant worked for more than 9 years in the past 10 years of her service in Tirur Head Office. Respondents relied on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Shilpi Bose and others v. S.L. Abbas [ 1993 (4) SCC 357 ]. In this judgment, the Apex Court states that aggrieved employees should approach their superiors, if they have grievance in transfer is not conducive to public interest. Applicant filed a rejoinder quoting the judgment of High Court of Kerala in O.P. (CAT) No. 4278 of 2012. Operative portion of that judgment is reproduced where it primarily said that department is requested to transfer their employees as per norms and condition prescribed for transfer. Tribunal heard both sides. Transfer is an incident of service. Guidelines issued by Apex Court in Shilpi Bose and others v. S.L. Abbas [ 1993 (4) SCC 357 ] that employee should first join in transferred post and representation is to be filed. A perusal of the guidelines issued for transfer, there should a tenure of three years in the place of posting in a post. In the present case, Applicant is transferred within one year from last transfer. Applicant herein had been transferred many times. This is not a case of routine transfer as alleged by Respondents. The transfer of the Applicant is due to inefficiency and lack of responsibility. In other words, this transfer is not in public interest as stated by the Respondents. It is punitive in nature, because a widow needs some consideration in the matter of accommodation by the department. Counsel for the Applicant quoted the judgment of Somesh Tiwari v. Union of India and others [ 2009 (2) SCC 592 ]. Para. 16 of that judgment is reproduced. It is stated that “when an order of transfer is passed in lieu of punishment the same is liable to be set aside being wholly illegal".

FRSR

Applicant herein, an Office Assistant, Divisional Office of Tirur Postal Department was transferred number of times in lieu of punishment, which is not tenable and considering the fact that she is to retire shortly. The case of her transfer as a punishment is untenable as held in the case of Somesh Tiwari v. Union of India and others [ 2009 (2) SCC 592 ] — The chunk discusses a decision in the case Smt. P.P. Prathibha v. Director-General of Posts and others where the transfer of an Office Assistant was ruled as illegal and punitive, citing the judgment... — Facts : Applicant, a widow, presently working as Office Assistant, Divisional Office at Tirur under Postal Department is aggrieved by her transfer (A/1) before completion of her tenure. Applicant joined as a Postal Assistant with effect from 19-1-1985. She had been granted TBOP, BCR and also 3rd MACP upgradation. She was transferred number of times even though there is ruling in Postal Department that a transfer can be ordered only after serving 3 years in the place of posting. Applicant who is 34 years of service and due to retire shortly is transferred number of times without caring for the ruling of the department in transfer cases. The action of the Superintendent of Post Office, Tirur Division, R-3 herein, transferring now is questioned in violation of Transfer Policy which is enclosed at A/3 which is illegal and arbitrary submits the Applicant. Respondent states that Postal Assistants are liable to be transferred. Applicant herein is transferred in public interest. Approval for her transfer had been obtained from Postmaster-General, Northern Region, Calicut. Transfer of the Applicant for the last 10 years is tabulated. Applicant worked for more than 9 years in the past 10 years of her service in Tirur Head Office. Respondents relied on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Shilpi Bose and others v. S.L. Abbas [ 1993 (4) SCC 357 ]. In this judgment, the Apex Court states that aggrieved employees should approach their superiors, if they have grievance in transfer is not conducive to public interest. Applicant filed a rejoinder quoting the judgment of High Court of Kerala in O.P. (CAT) No. 4278 of 2012. Operative portion of that judgment is reproduced where it primarily said that department is requested to transfer their employees as per norms and condition prescribed for transfer. Tribunal heard both sides. Transfer is an incident of service. Guidelines issued by Apex Court in Shilpi Bose and others v. S.L. Abbas [ 1993 (4) SCC 357 ] that employee should first join in transferred post and representation is to be filed. A perusal of the guidelines issued for transfer, there should a tenure of three years in the place of posting in a post. In the present case, Applicant is transferred within one year from last transfer. Applicant herein had been transferred many times. This is not a case of routine transfer as alleged by Respondents. The transfer of the Applicant is due to inefficiency and lack of responsibility. In other words, this transfer is not in public interest as stated by the Respondents. It is punitive in nature, because a widow needs some consideration in the matter of accommodation by the department. Counsel for the Applicant quoted the judgment of Somesh Tiwari v. Union of India and others [ 2009 (2) SCC 592 ]. Para. 16 of that judgment is reproduced. It is stated that “when an order of transfer is passed in lieu of punishment the same is liable to be set aside being wholly illegal".

Original Rule Text

Original Rule Text