• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

(OA/21/1148/2018) CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH HYDERABAD OA/21/1148/2018 Dated: 01/01/2019 Between Sandeep Pal, S/o. late Jeevanlal Pal, Aged about 31 years, Occ: Electrical Signal Maintainer, (ESM) II (Group C), O/o Senior Section Engineer, South Central Railway, Nanded Division, Nagarsol Station, Maharashtra R/o.RB-1/B, Nagarsol, Yeola Tq., Nashik Dist. ... Applicant AND Union of India rep. by 1. The General Manager, South Central Railways, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad. 2. The Divisional Railway Manager, South Central Railway, Nanded Division, Nanded, Maharashtra State. 3. The General Manager, Western Railway, Church Gate, Mumbai – 400 020. 4. Datta Wagh, ESM II, Unhel Station, Western Railway, Ratlam Division, O/o Senior Section Engineer (Signal), Nagda, Ujjain Dist., MP. ... Respondents Page 1 of 3 (OA/21/1148/2018) Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. K. Siva Reddy Counsel for the Respondents : Mr. S.M. Patnaik, SC for Rlys. CORAM : Hon’ble Mr. Justice L. Narasimha Reddy, Chairman Hon’ble Mr. B.V. Sudhakar, Admn. Member ORAL ORDER (Per Hon’ble Mr. Justice L. Narasimha Reddy, Chairman) The applicant was initially appointed as Electric Signal Maintainer Gr.III (for short – ESM- III) on compassionate ground under the South Central Railway and was posted in Nanded Division. It is stated that he has been promoted to the post of ESM- II on 13.09.2014 and was posted at Nagarsol. The 4th respondent is appointed to that post on 21.04.2015. The applicant on the one hand, and the 4th respondent on the other hand, submitted a representation/ application for their mutual transfer on 29.12.2015. The grievance of the applicant is that though more than three years have elapsed, the respondents have not taken any steps on the application. 2. Heard Sri K. Siva Reddy, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri S.M. Patnaik, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 3. The limited grievance of the applicant is about non-disposal of the application submitted for mutual transfer. The question as to whether the request made by the applicant and the 4th respondent is acceptable or not, needs to be examined by the respective Railways. As of now, the Page 2 of 3 (OA/21/1148/2018) applicant is working in the South Central Railway whereas the 4th respondent is working in Western Railway. The question as to whether the mutual transfers of this nature are permissible and if so, the conditions therefor, need to be examined by the Respondents No.1 & 3. This Tribunal cannot give any specific directions in this behalf. The Application cannot be kept pending indefinitely. 4. We, therefore, dispose of the O.A. directing the Respondents No.1 & 3 to consider the representation dated 29.12.2015 submitted by the applicant and the 4th respondent and pass appropriate orders thereof, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. There shall be no order as to costs. (B.V. SUDHAKAR) (JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY) MEMBER (ADMN.) CHAIRMAN pv Page 3 of 3 .

Load more

  3

Copy Link