IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 327 of 2006(S)
1. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS
... Petitioner
2. THE CONTROLLER GENERAL OF DEFENCE
3. THE DEPUTY CONTROLLER GENERAL OF
4. THE CONTROLLER OF DEFENCE ACCOUNTS,
5. THE ASSISTANT CONTROLLER OF DEFENCE
Vs
1. NARAYANAN EDACHERRY, CLERK A/C
... Respondent
2. THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
For Petitioner :SRI.TPM.IBRAHIM KHAN,SENIOR PANEL COUNS
For Respondent :SRI.V.AJITH NARAYANAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS
Dated :13/03/2009
O R D E R
K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.
------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 327 OF 2006
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 13th day of February, 2009
J U D G M E N T
~~~~~~~~~~~
Balakrishnan Nair, J.
The respondents in O.A.No.126/2005 before the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench are the writ
petitioners. The 1st respondent herein was the applicant. He
filed Ext.P1 Original Application challenging his transfer from
Kannur to Meerut, under Annexure-A2 order, and also other
related orders. The C.A.T, after hearing both sides, allowed the
Original Application as per Ext.P8 and the following directions
were issued.
“10. In the conspectus of facts and
circumstances I am of the considered view
that the transfer of the applicant is not in
the true spirit of the guidelines and
therefore Annexure-A2, Annexure-A7,
Annexure-A9 and Annexure-A10 impugned
orders will not stand in its legs. The same are
set aside. Respondents are directed to grant
proper reliefs to the applicant by retaining
him at Kannur since he is entitled for the
same as per the guidelines.”
W.P.(C) No.327/2006 2
Challenging Ext.P8, this writ petition was filed. This Court did
not grant any interim order, therefore, the 1st respondent
continued at Kannur. The vacancy in Meerut, to which the 1st
respondent was transferred, must have been filled up long ago.
The said respondent has now passed 58 years of age. In view of
the above position, the orders impugned in the Original
Application cannot be implemented now. But, we feel that the
power of the appointing authority to transfer the 1st respondent
in future in accordance with the relevant norms or in exigencies
of service should be upheld. So, the writ petition is disposed of
giving liberty to the competent authority among the writ
petitioners to transfer the 1st respondent in future, if found
necessary, in accordance with the relevant norms or in
exigencies of service.
(K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE)
(M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE)
ps