IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 1370 of 2010()
1. RAJARAMAN.E., AGED 51 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. UNION OF IDNIA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE CHAIRMAN,
3. THE ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR,
4. THE ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR,
5. THE HON'BLE VICE-CHAIRMAN,
For Petitioner :SRI.T.C.GOVINDA SWAMY
For Respondent :SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM (SR.)
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.J.CHELAMESWAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :20/08/2010
O R D E R
J.CHELAMESWAR, C.J. & P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.
-----------------------------------------
W.A.No.1370 of 2010
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of August, 2010
JUDGMENT
Ravindran,J.
The appellant is the petitioner in W.P(C) No. 24158 of 2010. The
writ petition was filed challenging Ext.P1 order transferring the
petitioner, the Judicial Member of the Railway Claims Tribunal,
Ernakulam, to the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhuvaneswar. By
judgment delivered on 3.8.2010 the learned single Judge dismissed
the writ petition. The brief facts of the case are as follows.
2. The appellant, a practicing advocate at Chennai was
appointed as Member (Judicial) in the Bangalore Bench of the Railway
Claims Tribunal by Ext.P2 order dated 29.11.2006. The appointment
was for a period of five years from the date of joining the Railway
Claims Tribunal or till the attainment of 68 years of age, whichever is
earlier. The appellant assumed office as Member (Judicial) in the
Bangalore Bench of the Railway Claims tribunal on 29.11.2006.
Shortly thereafter he was transferred to Guwahati Bench of the
Railway claims Tribunal and was relieved from Bangalore Bench on
5.4.2007. He assumed office at Guwahati on 23.4.2007. He
W.A.No.1370 of 2010
-:2:-
thereafter represented against his transfer. Acting on the said
representation he was transferred and posted as Member (Judicial)
Railway Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam, where he assumed office in
July, 2007. While the appellant was functioning as Member
(Judicial) Railway Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam, the Chairman of the
Railway Claims Tribunal transferred and posted him as Member
(Judicial) in the Railway Claims Tribunal at Bhuvaneswar by Ext.P1
order dated 25.5.2010. Aggrieved by Ext.P1 order of transfer the
appellant filed O.A.No.451 of 2010 in the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench. By Annexure A order passed on
20.7.2010 the Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed the
application. Incidentally the Central Administrative Tribunal also
held, overruling the contention of the respondents, that it has
jurisdiction to entertain the application challenging the appellant’s
transfer to Bhuvaneswar.
3. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal dismissing O.A.No.451 of 2010 the
appellant filed W.P(C)No.22859 of 2010 in this Court. When the
writ petition came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this
Court, this Court passed Annexure B order dated 30.7.2010 to the
W.A.No.1370 of 2010
-:3:-
effect that the pendency of the writ petition will not stand in the
way of the appellant seeking relief from other jurisdictions, if he is
entitled to the same. The Division Bench expressed a doubt as to
the competence of the Central Administrative Tribunal to entertain
the dispute. Later, the Division Bench heard W.P(C) No.22589 of
2010 and on 2.8.2010 reserved judgment in the matter. The
Division Bench also passed Annexure C order to the effect that it
will be open to the appellant to seek other remedies as stated in
the earlier order dated 30-7-2010. The instant writ appeal was
thereupon filed challenging Ext.P1 order. It was contended that the
transfer is not in the exigencies of service and that it is a colourable
exercise of power. The appellant contended that the posts of
Member (Judicial) and Member (Technical) at Bhuvaneswar have
been lying vacant for the past several months and that by Ext.P3
order dated 26.2.2010 he was authorized to discharge the
functions of Member (Judicial) at Bhuvaneswar for ten working days
every month, that as per the said order he has been discharging
the functions of Member (Judicial) in the Railway Claims Tribunal,
Bhuvaneswar Bench for ten days a month and that if he is
transferred from Ernakulam to Bhuvaneswar, the Ernakulam Bench
W.A.No.1370 of 2010
-:4:-
will be left without a Judicial Member. The learned single Judge
repelled his contentions and held that the Chairman of the Railway
Claims Tribunal is competent to transfer the appellant. The writ
petition was accordingly dismissed. Hence this writ appeal.
4. We heard Sri.K.R.B.Kaimal, learned Senior Advocate
appearing for the appellant, Sri.N.B.Sunil Nath, learned counsel
appearing for the first respondent and Sri.P.Santhalingam, learned
Senior Advocate appearing for respondents 2 to 5. We have also
gone through the pleadings and the materials on record. The
learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, reiterating the
contentions in the writ petition contended that the appellant’s
transfer to Bhuvaneswar is not in public interest or in the
exigencies of service. The learned counsel also contended that if
the appellant is transferred to Bhuvaneswar, the Ernakulam Bench
will cease to have the service of a Judicial Member. The learned
counsel also submitted that steps have been taken to appoint
Judicial/Technical Members in various Railway Claims Tribunals
including the Tribunal at Bhuvaneswar and that the purpose sought
to be achieved by transferring the appellant can be achieved if the
selection process is expedited. Per contra, Sri.P.Santhalingam,
W.A.No.1370 of 2010
-:5:-
learned Senior Advocate appearing for respondents 2 to 5,
submitted that as against 73 cases pending in the Ernakulam Bench
more than 1000 cases are pending in the Bhuvaneswar Bench, that
on account of the delay in completing the selection process the
posts of Judicial/Technical Members at Bhuvaneswar Bench are
lying vacant, that taking note of the large pendency of cases, the
Chairman of the Railway Claims Tribunal decided to transfer the
appellant from Ernakulam to Bhuvaneswar and that the transfer
was in the exigencies of service and in public interest. The learned
counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that nearly ten
months have passed after the selection process commenced and
that the selection process can be completed and the vacancies
including those at Bhuvaneswar filled up expeditiously.
5. We have given anxious consideration to the rival
contentions made at the Bar by the learned counsel on either side.
In the light of the admitted fact that the pendency in Ernakulam
Bench is only 73 cases as against more than 1000 cases at
Bhuvaneswar and the fact that the posts of Judicial/Technical
Members at Bhuvaneswar have been lying vacant for the past
several months, we are of the opinion that the order transferring
W.A.No.1370 of 2010
-:6:-
the appellant to Bhuvaneswar cannot be said to be one which is not
in the exigencies of service or in public interest. The large
pendency of cases at Bhuvaneswar is certainly a relevant
consideration for the purpose of taking a decision as to whether the
post of Judicial Member at Bhuvaneswar should be filled up by
transferring an incumbent from another Bench. Further it is
admitted that ever since February 2010, the appellant has been
discharging the duties of Judicial Member at Bhuvaneswar for ten
days a month. In such circumstances we are not persuaded to
agree with the appellant that his transfer is not on administrative
grounds. The appellant was appointed for a period of five years
with effect from 29.11.2006. The said period will come to an end
on 28.11.2011. It is admitted that the selection process to fill up
vacancies of Judicial/Technical Members in various Railway Claims
Tribunals, including the vacancies at Bhuvaneswar, have been
initiated and that nearly ten months have passed thereafter.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case we are of
the opinion that the ends of justice will be met if the respondents
are directed to expedite the selection process and to fill up the
vacancies of Judicial Member and Technical Member at
W.A.No.1370 of 2010
-:7:-
Bhuvaneswar and various other Benches of the Railway Claims
Tribunal and thereafter transfer the appellant back to Ernakulam
Bench. It will be open to the appellant to submit a representation
seeking transfer to a station other than Ernakulam and the
competent authority among the respondents shall in that event
consider the same and take an appropriate decision thereon.
We accordingly dispose of the writ appeal with a direction to
the competent authority among the respondents to take steps to fill
up the vacancies of Judicial/Technical Members in the various
Benches of the Railway Claims Tribunal within four months from the
date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment and thereafter to
transfer the appellant back to Ernakulam Bench or to any other
station of his choice. Till such time, the vacancy of Judicial
Member at Ernakulam shall not be filled up on a regular basis.
J.CHELAMESWAR,
Chief Justice
P.N.RAVINDRAN,
Judge.
ahg.
J.CHELAMESWAR, C.J. &
P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.
—————————
W.A.No.1370 of 2010
—————————-
JUDGMENT
20th August, 2010