JUDGMENT
Mukul Mudgal, J
1. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, this writ petition is taken up for final hearing.
2. This writ petition arises against the order dated 25th October, 2004 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi(hereinafter referred to as `the CAT’) confirming the order dated 20th August, 2001 of the respondents by which order the petitioner was transferred from Delhi to Chennai.
3. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner, S/Sh. A.S. Chandhioke and Jayant Bhushan have averred as follows:-
(a) The petitioner, who is an IRS officer joined the Department of Income Tax in the year 1982 as Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax/ITO. On 20th August, 2001, a transfer order was issued by the respondent No.1 transferring the petitioner to Chennai as Member (Appropriate Authority).
(b) The transfer order was protested by the petitioner vide a representation dated 8th November, 2001.
(c) On 11th January, 2001 the petitioner availed earned leave, pending the decision on her representation.
(d) On 17th October, 2001 the petitioner applied for study leave along with some other officers, who were granted the same but the application of the petitioner was kept pending by the respondents. On 11th March, 2002, the petitioner was granted study leave for a period of 6 months. On 4th August, 2002, the petitioner applied for extension of the study leave for a further period of 6 months which was neither refused nor assented to in writing by the respondents.
(e) On 4th March, 2003, the petitioner resumed her duty and was paid salary till December, 2003 without any objection by the respondents.
(f) On 6th May, 2004 the petitioner requested the respondents to issue fresh posting orders to her in consonance with the departmental rules, preferably in Delhi, Ghaziabad & Faridabad in view of her family circumstances. However, on 25th April, 2004 the respondents issued an office order as per the general transfer order dated 20th August, 2001.
(g) On 4th June, 2004 the petitioner filed a representation against the order dated 25th April, 2004 which was dismissed.
(h) On 6th August, 2004 the petitioner filed an OA before the CAT (Principal Bench), New Delhi challenging the orders dated 20th August, 2001, 25th May, 2004 and 11th June, 2004 which was dismissed on 25th October, 2004. It is against this order of the CAT (Principal Bench, New Delhi) that this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.
4.The learned Addl. Solicitor General, Shri PP Malhotra appearing for the respondent averred as follows:-
(a) The petitioner holds a transferable post and she has no right to continue at a particular place indefinitely.
(b) The transfer was according to law and not mala fide as according to the transfer guidelines an officer is liable to be transferred/posted to any part of the country at any time at a short notice on administrative grounds.
(c) The petitioner herself frankly conceded before the CAT (Principal Bench) New Delhi that she had taken study leave to look after her children.
(d) While granting study leave to the petitioner, the order of posting in Chennai was not automatically cancelled or suspended.
(e) The representations of the petitioner dated 8th November, 2001 and 4th June, 2004 against her posting in Chennai were duly considered by the respondents. The petitioner was informed vide letter dated 6th August, 2004 that her request was not accepted by the respondents and the petitioner was again requested to join her new posting at Chennai.
5. The findings of the CAT (Principal Bench, New Delhi) are as follows:-
1) The petitioner had been evading her transfer to Chennai on one pretext or another by taking earned leave, study leave etc.
2) The petitioner remained absent unauthorisedly as her application for extension of study leave for a further period beyond 6 months was not sanctioned by the competent authority.
3) The presumption of the petitioner that as a consequence of the grant of study leave, the earlier transfer order gets automatically superseded is baseless.
4) As per the position of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Shilpi Bose Vs State of Bihar reported as 1992 (6) SLR 713 (SC) the courts should refrain from interfering in day-to-day transfer orders as it would lead to administrative chaos.
6. In our view the petitioner has been clearly trying to evade her transfer order dated 20th August, 2001 on one pretext or the other. We agree with the findings and reasoning given by the CAT (Principal Bench) New Delhi that the post held by the petitioner is a transferable post and petitioner does not have any vested right to continue in the same place indefinitely. Further, the petitioner’s own admission before the CAT (Principal Bench) New Delhi that she had availed study leave to look after the children clearly demonstrates that the intention of the petitioner was not for academic pursuits but for collateral reasons. The petitioner’s main plea is that the order granting her study leave automatically supersedes the order of transfer. If this construction put forth by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Shri Chandhiok and Shri Bhushan is accepted then a transfer order could easily be circumvented or thwarted by an employee by seeking study/medical leave. Unless and until a transfer order is specifically annulled/withdrawn, it would continue to hold the field notwithstanding the grant of study leave. We have also noticed that as pleaded by the respondent, the petitioner after the expiry of her earned leave on 1st November, 2001, applied for extension of the earned leave from 2nd November, 2001 to 14th December, 2001 medical leave from 15th December, 2002 to 25th January, 2003 and again earned leave from 26th January, 2003 to 3rd April, 2003. It has also been pleaded by the respondent that the leave applications of the petitioner were forwarded to the Central Board of Direct Taxes by Chief Commissioner, Income-tax, Delhi but leave was not granted to her from 2nd November, 2001 to 3rd April, 2002. Her continuance in Delhi was, therefore, unauthorized. In this view of the matter the writ petition is dismissed and the stay order dated 22nd November, 2004 is accordingly vacated.