IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 25309 of 2010(S)
1. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY THE
... Petitioner
2. THE CHIEF PERSONNEL OFFICER, SOUTHERN
3. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER,
4. SENIOR DIVISIONAL OPERATIONS MANAGER,
5. THE ADDITIONAL DIVISIONAL RAILWAY
Vs
1. C.V. MATHEW, S/O. D.D.VREED, STATION
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.B.JAYASANKAR, SC, RAILWAYS
For Respondent :SRI.T.C.GOVINDA SWAMY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN
Dated :26/10/2010
O R D E R
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &
K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.
------------------------------------------------------------
W.P(C) NO: 25309 OF 2010 S
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 26th October, 2010.
JUDGMENT
Ramachandran Nair, J.
The order under challenge is the one issued by Central
Administrative Tribunal declining respondent’s entitlement for a
posting as Station Master Gr.III in Shornur. Though the order was
issued by railways posting respondent in Shornur on 1.4.2009, the
same was later cancelled which was the order challenged before the
Central Administrative Tribunal and cancelled by them. Before us
counsel for the railways submitted that the transfer given to the
respondent from Panambur to Shornur is under a mistake with
regard to the entitlement to the respondent for transfer. However,
what is clear from the sequence of events is that, the respondent
served in a place called Mavelipalayam in Tamil Nadu which was
within the Trichi division. He requested for an inter division
transfer and opted three places, Shoranur, Karakkad and Pattambi
in Palghat division. The respondent’s request was made in 2003
with the railways in which he was rank No:3 in the list of applicants
for inter division transfer and posting. Admittedly based on an
WPC 25309/2010 2
earlier CAT order respondent was shifted to Palakkad division and
posted in a place called Panambur where he was a station master.
This happened after the new Salem division was formed which was
made up with part of the Palakkad, Trichi and Madurai divisions.
The railway does not contest the inter division transfer given to the
respondent based on his request made earlier and in terms of the
CAT order. However, what is sought to be cancelled is the transfer
of the respondent from Panambur to Shornur made by Ext.A9 and
which was later cancelled by Ext.A1. Under the modified order
respondent was retained in Panambur itself. However, admittedly
nobody is posted to the post in Shornur to which respondent was
transferred based on his original request. The case of the railways
is that the respondent after availing the benefit of inter division
transfer cannot continue to retain his option in terms of his
original request made in 2003. We do not find any force in the
contention of the railways because inter division transfer granted to
respondent is acceptable to them. The balance is only posting of
the respondent from one place to another within the same division
which probably was originally done based on his request made in
2003. We are not told by the railways that there is any other
applicant who was superior claim over the respondent for the
WPC 25309/2010 3
posting in Shornur. In the circumstances we do not find any merit
in the writ petition filed. We accordingly uphold the order of the
CAT. Since counsel for the railways has requested for two months
time we grant the same but on specific condition that the post to
which respondent was originally transferred at Shornur which is
lying vacant shall not be filled up even on a stop gap arrangement
until he is shifted.
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Judge
K. SURENDRA MOHAN
Judge
jj
WPC 25309/2010 4