K. Haridasan v. Indian Council for Agricultural Research (ICAR) and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM WEDNESDAY, THE 12[TH] DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 22ND POUSHA, 1943** **OP (CAT) NO. 2 OF 2022** **AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 07.01.2022 IN OA NO.7/2022 OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH** ## **PETITIONER/APPLICANT:** **K.HARIDASAN** **AGED 57 YEARS, ASSISTANT, CPCRI, REGIONAL STATION, KAYAMKULAM, RESIDING AT REVATHY, KAPPILMEKKU, KRISHNAPURAM P O, KAYAMKULM-690533.** **BY ADVS. R.RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI SABINA JAYAN** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE INDIAN COUNCIL FOR AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH (ICAR) REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KRISHI BHAWAN DR.RAJENDRA PRASAD ROAD, NEW DELHI-110001.** - **2 THE DIRECTOR CENTRAL PLANTATION CROPS RESEARCH INSTITUTE, KUDLU P O, KASARGOD-671124.** - **3 INCHARGE CPCRI REGIONAL STATION, KAYAMKULAM-690533.** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** ## **SRI.SANTHOSH KUMAR.P** **THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** O.P.(CAT) No. 2 of 2022 2 ## **ALEXANDER THOMAS & VIJU ABRAHAM, JJ.** ----------------------------------------------------------------- O.P.(CAT) No. 2 of 2022 _[against the order dated 07.01.2022 in O.A. No.7/2022 of the CAT, Ekm Bench]_ ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 12[th] day of January, 2022 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Alexander Thomas , J.** The petitioner herein has filed the instant Ext.P1 original application, O.A. No.7/2022 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, with the following prayers:- - _"i. Direct the respondents 2 and 3 to retain the applicant in the present station at Kayamkulam._ - _ii. Quash Annexure-A1 as arbitrary and unwarranted and it is opposed to the mandate contained in Annexure-A6_ - _iii. Quash Annexure-A3 and A5 as arbitrary and opposed to the rudimentary principles of natural justice and hence opposed to Article 14 of the Constitution._ - _iv. Direct the respondents 2 and 3 to disburse the salary of the applicant forthwith._ _and_ - _v. Award cost to the applicant."_ 2. The interim relief/interim prayer raised in Ext.P1 O.A. is as follows:- _"Stay the operation of Annexure-A1 and direct to retain the applicant at the present station at Kayamkulam, pending disposal of the Original Application."_ 3. When the above O.A. had come up for consideration, the Tribunal has passed the impugned Ext.P2 interim order dated O.P.(CAT) No. 2 of 2022 3 ## 07.01.2022, which reads as follows:- _"Heard Adv.Ms.Sabina Jayan, learned counsel for the applicant._ _Adv.Mr.P.Santhosh Kumar takes notice on behalf of the respondents and prays for time for filing reply statement._ _It is submitted that the applicant has already been relieved. In such a situation, no interim relief can be granted._ _Hence, post the matter for filing a short reply statement to 17.02.2022."_ 4. A reading of Ext.P2 would show that the Tribunal has held that as the petitioner herein/original applicant has already been relieved from his current station at Kayamkulam in pursuance of the impugned Anx.A1 transfer order dated 26.11.2021. However, the Tribunal has ordered that short reply statement shall be filed by the respondents in the O.A. and for that purpose, the O.A. has been posted to 17.02.2022. It is this interim order rendered by the Tribunal refusing interim relief as per Ext.P2, that is under challenge in this original petition. 5. Heard Sri.R.Rajasekharan Pillai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner herein/the original applicant before the Tribunal and Sri.P.Santhosh Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the ICAR (Indian Council of Agriculture Research), appearing for respondents in the O.P./respondents in the O.A. 6. The petitioner, who is holding the post of Assistant under the 3[rd] respondent CPCRI (Central Plantation Crops O.P.(CAT) No. 2 of 2022 4 Research Institute), regional station at Kayamkulam, Kerala State, was transferred to the station at Vittal, Karnataka State under the 2[nd] respondent. Sri.R.Rajasekharan Pillai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner herein would point out that the original applicant has been transferred for no rhyme and reason and that a reading of Anx.A1 transfer order dated 26.11.2021 would make it clear like the day light that no substitute has been ordered to be placed in the station at Kayamkulam and that the applicant (petitioner herein) has been subjected to unilateral transfer all the way from Kayamkulam in Kerala State to Vittal in Karnataka State, etc. and that there is no public interest involved in the transfer. Further that, though it is stated as per Anx.A5 dated 30.12.2021, issued by the 2[nd] respondent that the petitioner has been relieved from his station at Kayamkulam, the said factual statement made therein is incorrect, as the rules and norms stipulate that the petitioner could have been validly relieved from service in his station at Kayamkulam only by the 3[rd] respondent, who is the in charge of the CPCRI at Kayamkulam. Further also that, the applicant (petitioner herein) has entered on leave and has not so far been joined at Vittal and hence he is not permitted to work at O.P.(CAT) No. 2 of 2022 5 Kayamkulam. 7. Per contra, Sri.P.Santhosh Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the ICAR, appearing for the respondents would submit that it is reliably learnt that the applicant (petitioner herein) has been continuing in the present station for a very long time and that therefore there is public interest in the impugned transfer at Anx.A1 and further that it is learnt that the applicant (the petitioner herein) has now entered on medical leave, etc. Further that, all steps will be taken by the respondents to ensure that reply statement is filed in the main matter in the O.A., well before the next posting date and that this Court may direct the disposal of the main matter in the O.A., etc. 8. To this, Sri.R.Rajasekharan Pillai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner herein would strongly urge that it is the admitted case of both sides that no substitute has been posted in the place of the petitioner at Kayamkulam and that the petitioner is already on leave and that he has not joined duty in the new station at Vittal, Karnataka State, etc. Further also that, the statement made on behalf of the respondents that the applicant (petitioner herein) has been continuing in the present station for a very long O.P.(CAT) No. 2 of 2022 6 time, etc. is wrong and incorrect and that the applicant (petitioner herein) in the post of his service has served in various places including far from places like Kasargod, etc. That, the applicant (petitioner herein) has now already completed the age of 57 years and has also very short time to retire from service and that going by the norms, such employees who have only short time to retire from service are not to be transferred in this manner, etc. Accordingly, it is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that this court may interfere in the matter and pass appropriate orders to ensure the retention of the petitioner herein at Kayamkulam, pending disposal of the matter in the O.A., etc. 9. After hearing both sides, we note that the applicant (petitioner herein) has got a specific case that he has not been lawfully relieved from his present station at Kayamkulam in Kerala State in pursuance of the impugned Anx.A1 transfer order, etc. Be that as it may, we specifically taken note of the fact that no substitute has been ordered to be posted in the place of the petitioner at Kayamkulam and further that he has not so far joined the duty in the post at Vittal, Karnataka State, and that he has now entered on leave. Further we have also noted the fact that the O.P.(CAT) No. 2 of 2022 7 respondents has taken a fair stand that they will immediately file reply affidavit in the main matter in the O.A., without any further delay. That being so, we are of the view that the Tribunal can ensure the early final disposal of the main matter in the O.A. As of now, no public purpose is subserved by permitting the present state of affairs to continue. The applicant (petitioner herein) has got a case that he has not been lawfully relieved from service in pursuance of the impugned transfer order. That apart, the fact of the matter appears to be that no substitute has been posted in his place at Kayamkulam and the applicant (petitioner herein) admittedly has entered on leave. That being so, no public purpose was mainly subserved by not permitting the petitioner to be retained in Kayamkulam at least on a provisional basis, so as to extract work from him, pending final disposal of the O.A., which could be ensured within a month or so. 10. In that view of the matter, without getting into the merits of the controversy in the main O.A. and mainly to ensure preservation and protection of the subject matter of the lis, and also taking note of the fact that the applicant (petitioner herein) is now aged more than 57 years, etc. it is ordered in the interest of justice O.P.(CAT) No. 2 of 2022 8 that the petitioner shall be temporarily retained in the post at Kayamkulam, Kerala State, pending final disposal of the main matter in the O.A. The 3[rd] respondent shall forthwith comply with the said interlocutory arrangement. Further, it is order in the interest of justice that the Tribunal will ensure to take all reasonable endeavours possible under the circumstances, to ensure the early consideration and facilitation of the final disposal of the main matter in the instant O.A. No.7/2022 without much delay, preferably within a period of 6 weeks. The respondents will ensure that their reply statement in the O.A. is filed within 2 weeks and the petitioner will thereupon file rejoinder, if any, thereto within one week, thereafter. The Registry of the Tribunal will ensure that the main matter in the O.A. is posted before the Tribunal, within 4 weeks or so. 11. The Registry of this Court will forward copy of this order to the Registry of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, who is dealing with O.A.No.7/2022, for necessary information. 12. We would make it clear that the above interim arrangement made by us is only for the purpose of preservation of the subject matter of the lis and shall not be construed, in any O.P.(CAT) No. 2 of 2022 9 manner, as an opinion on our part regarding the main controversy which is to be resolved by the Tribunal. With these observations and directions, the above original application will stand disposed of. Sd/- **ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE** Sd/- **VIJU ABRAHAM, JUDGE** Skk//13012022 O.P.(CAT) No. 2 of 2022 10 ## **APPENDIX OF OP (CAT) 2/2022** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :-** - **Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.7/2022 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE KAT.** - **Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE TRANSFER ORDER F NO.8(2) TRANS OF ADMN.STAFF/2020-ESTT DATED 26.11.2021 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** - **Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION F.NO.8(2) TRANS FOR ADMN.STAFF/2020-ESTT DATED 9.12.2021 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT REJECTING ANNEXURE-A2.** - **Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION F.NO.8(2) TRANS FOR ADMN.STAFF/2020-ESTT DATED 30.12.2021 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO TH 3RD RESPONDENT** - **Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATION DATED 27.11.2021 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** - **Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATION DATED 14.12.2021 AGAINST ANNEXURE-A3 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** - **Annexure A6 TRUE COPY OF THE TRANSFER NORMS AND GUIDELINES ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTS.** - **Annexure A7 TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE CERTIFICATE OF THE APPLICANT'S WIFE FROM VSM HOSPITAL ON 26.10.2017.** - **Annexure A8 TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE CERTIFICATE OF THE APPLICANT'S WIFE FROM VSM HOSPITAL ON 1.11.2019.** - **Annexure A9 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED ON 29.12.2021 FROM VSM HOSPITAL TO THE APPLICANT'S WIFE.** - **Annexure A10 TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE CONCERNED DOCTORS TO THE APPLICANT'S MOTHER-IN-LAW.** - **Annexure A11 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICANT'S MEDICAL CERTIFICATE AND LEAVE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** - **Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 7.1.2022 OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN O A NO.7/2022.** ## **RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS :- NIL**