PILLAI MINI SUKUMARAN v UNION OF INDIA; MINIMOL O. K. v UNION OF INDIA (OP (CAT) Nos. 9 of 2022 and 10 of 2022)

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P. MONDAY, THE 6[TH] DAY OF JUNE 2022/16TH JYAISHTA, 1944 OP (CAT) NO.9 OF 2022** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OA 516/2021 OF CENTRAL** **ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH** ## **PETITIONER:** SMT. PILLAI MINI SUKUMARAN, AGED 48 YEARS W/O. BIJU P., ASSISTANT ACCOUNTS OFFICER, AREA ACCOUNTS OFFICE (NAVY), PERUMANOOR, KOCHI-682015, RESIDING AT THEKKEPERINGALIL HOUSE, THULAMPARAMBA SOUTH, HARIPAD-690514. BY ADV.SRI.T.C.GOVINDASWAMY BY ADV.SMT.KALA T.GOPI BY ADV.SRI.B.NAMADEVA PRABHU ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (NAVY), NEW DELHI-110011. 2 THE CONTROLLER GENERAL OF DEFENCE ACCOUNTS, ULAN BATAR ROAD, PALAM, DELHI CANTT. PIN-110010. 3 THE PRINCIPAL, CONTROLLER OF DEFENCE ACCOUNTS(NAVY), NO.1, COOPERAGE ROAD, COLABA, MUMBAI-400001. 4 THE OFFICER IN CHARGE, AREA ACCOUNTS OFFICE (NAVY), PERUMANOOR, KOCHI-682015. 5 THE SENIOR ACCOUNTS OFFICER (A/N), OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL CONTROLLER OF DEFENCE ACCOUNTS (NAVY), NO.1, COOPERAGE ROAD, COLABA, MUMBAI-400 001. BY ADV MANU S., ASG OF INDIA THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.06.2022, ALONG WITH OP (CAT).10/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **O.P. (CATs). 9 & 10/2022 - 2 -** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P. MONDAY, THE 6[TH] DAY OF JUNE 2022/16TH JYAISHTA, 1944** **O.P.(CAT)NO.10 OF 2022** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OA 180/2021 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH** ## **PETITIONER:** MINIMOL O. K., AGED 49 YEARS W/O. DHANISH KUMAR, ASSISTANT ACCOUNTS OFFICER, AREA ACCOUNTS OFFICE (NAVY), PERUMANOOR, KOCHI-682015, RESIDING AT QUARTERS C-2, DEFENCE ACCOUNTS DEPARTMENT, RESIDENTIAL COMPLEX, VARGHESE THITTAYIL ROAD, KOCHI-672015. BY ADV.SRI.T.C.GOVINDASWAMY BY ADV.SMT.KALA T.GOPI B.NAMADEVA PRABHU ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (NAVY), NEW DELHI-110011. 2 THE CONTROLLER GENERAL OF DEFENCE ACCOUNTS, ULAN BATAR ROAD, PALAM, DELHI CANTT. PIN-110010. 3 THE PRINCIPAL, CONTROLLER OF DEFENCE ACCOUNTS(NAVY), NO.1, COOPERAGE ROAD, COLABA, MUMBAI-400001. **O.P. (CATs). 9 & 10/2022 - 3 -** 4 THE OFFICER IN CHARGE, AREA ACCOUNTS OFFICE (NAVY), PERUMANOOR, KOCHI-682015. 5 THE SENIOR ACCOUNTS OFFICER (A/N), OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL CONTROLLER OF DEFENCE ACCOUNTS (NAVY), NO.1, COOPERAGE ROAD, COLABA, MUMBAI-400 001. BY ADV MANU S., ASG OF INDIA THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.06.2022, ALONG WITH OP (CAT).9/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **O.P. (CATs). 9 & 10/2022 - 4 -** ## **J U D G M E N T** ## **A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.** As both these Original Petition (CATs) arise from a common order dated 27-1-2022 of the Tribunal in O.A. Nos. 180/516 and 180/517 of 2021, they are taken up for consideration together and disposed by this common judgment. 2. The petitioners herein were the applicants in the said OAs and they were aggrieved by an order of transfer passed when they were working as Assistant Accounts Officer Group B (Gazetted) in the Area Accounts Office, Navy Kochi, that transferred them from Kochi to Mumbai. The challenge to the transfer order was primarily on the contentions that the transfer order was in violation of the transfer policy (Annexure - A3) in as much as, (i) there was no placement board that considered the matter of transfer and issued directions for implementation, (ii) that the petitioners had children who were studying in the X standard and thus a transfer at this stage would visit them with serious prejudice iii) that the applicants being women had to be retained in the same place as their husbands who **O.P. (CATs). 9 & 10/2022 - 5 -** were also in Government service, taking note of their role as caregiver and homemaker. It was also contended that there were others, junior to the petitioners, and who had spent less time in Cochin, who were available for transfer to Mumbai and further, that there was no shortage of personnel in Mumbai as alleged by the respondents. 3. The respondents filed a written statement in the OAs denying the various averments therein. The stand of the respondents before the Tribunal was that the Defence Accounts Department had offices located throughout the country to cater to the needs of all elements of the Indian Defence Service. The applicants being Group B Gazetted Officers were working in Defence related offices doing the establishment work of the defence officials and as per the terms of their appointment orders they were bound to work anywhere where the Defence Accounts Offices were situated. It was the further contention of the respondents, that the transfer was effected by the Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Navy), in public interest when faced with administrative exigency due to the deficiency caused in the Mumbai Office, consequent to the promotion of Assistant Accounts Officers to the post of Accounts Officers. The transfer of the applicants, it is stated, was recommended by the DAPB as per their minutes dated 26-8-2021 and approved by the competent authority on 3008-2021. The respondents also provided the details of the strength of Assistant Accounts Officers at Mumbai, Visakapattanam and Kochi to **O.P. (CATs). 9 & 10/2022 - 6 -** demonstrate the deficiency noticed in Mumbai and the surplus that existed in Kochi office and justified the transfer of the applicants as required in the exigencies of service. 4. The Tribunal, on an elaborate consideration of the contentions of both sides, found that the DAPB had actually considered the case of the applicants in a properly conducted meeting on 26-8-2021 and the minutes of the same, produced as Annexure R(b), clearly indicated that the DAPB had specifically considered the case of the petitioners and had found it necessary to transfer the petitioners under the exigencies of services and on administrative reasons. It was, in particular, noticed by the Tribunal that the petitioners herein had no case that DAPB had not considered their case deliberately or with any malafide intention and there was a complete absence of pleadings with regard to the factual malafides in the original applications. The contention of the applicants that the transfer order was issued by a person who did not have the competence to issue the order was also rejected by the Tribunal after perusing the files. The case laws relied on by the applicants were also found to be distinguishable on facts. The Tribunal, therefore, refused to interfere with the impugned transfer order, but made it clear that since the applicants before them were ladies and their children were studying in the X standard, the respondents would consider their case on the basis of Annexure A19 Circular issued by the Office of the Controller General of Defence Accounts as and when vacancies **O.P. (CATs). 9 & 10/2022 - 7 -** arose in Kerala. 5. Before us, Sri. T.C. Govindaswamy, the learned counsel for the petitioners would re-iterate the contentions raised before the Tribunal, with regard to the non-compliance of the transfer guidelines and also with regard to the non-consideration of the issue of transfer of the petitioners by a placement board that was newly constituted. He would also highlight the prejudice that would visit the petitioners on account of their transfer at this stage when their children were studying in the X standard and their husbands were also posted in and around Kochi in connection with their employment. As regards the reasons mentioned in the transfer order he would point out that a perusal of the transfer order would indicate that the sole reason for transfer of the petitioner was the fact that they were found to be excess personnel as against the sanctioned strength of Assistant Accounts Officers in Kochi and who were transferred to fill a corresponding deficiency in the number of Assistant Accounts Officers in Mumbai. According to him, the transfer order proceeds on an erroneous assumption of facts. He points out that by another order issued on the very next day, Assistant Accounts Officers were posted in Kochi to replace the petitioners who were ordered to be transferred from Kochi. He place reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in **Ramadhar Pandey v. State of U.P. And Others [1993 SCC (L & S) 918]** and the decision of the Delhi High Court dated 25-08-2015 in **Union of India and** **O.P. (CATs). 9 & 10/2022 - 8 -** **Ors v. Yogender Mittal [Writ Petition No. 6726 of 2015]** , to fortify his contentions on merits. He also places reliance on the judgment dated 10-32022 in **SK Nausad Rahaman & Ors. v. Union of India [Civil Appeal No.1243 of 2022]** and connected cases to drive home the point as regards the alleged systemic discrimination on account of gender meted out in the work place which according to him, has relevance on the facts of the instant case as the petitioners are both women. 6. We heard Sri. Govindaswami, the learned counsel for the petitioners in both these OP (CATs) and Sri.T.V. Vinu, the Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 7. On a consideration of the rival submissions, we find that it is not in dispute that as a general principle of service law, orders of transfer passed by the employer are not to be disregarded by courts while considering the illegality. Transfer being an incident in an all India service, the competent authority can transfer an employee to any place in India where it considers expedient to do so. In any service when the relationship is that of employer and employee, the employer has full power to transfer his employee whenever he wants because transfer is ordered looking to the character and quality of work the employee does, and if the employer is of the opinion that a particular employee is required at a particular place for a particular duty, the employer has the right to transfer such an employee and **O.P. (CATs). 9 & 10/2022 - 9 -** this power of the employer cannot normally be curtailed or interfered in a judicial review. It is the administration which is the sole authority to decide the posting and transfers of the officers and the scope of judicial review in transfer matters is limited to testing whether it is a fair exercise of power, ensuring absence of malafides, ascertaining if there is any violation of statutory provisions or a deviation from the professed norms or guidelines, or if the transfer order is made by an authority not competent to order the transfer. How best, the service of an employee can be utilized must be left to the wisdom of the employer and when the employer decides that the service of an employee could be better utilized in some other place, that decision will not ordinarily be interfered with by a Court of law. This cannot be understood to be a power granted to the employer to be exercised capriciously as the employer, particularly when it is a “State” is duty bound to act as model employer. In matters where factual malafides are alleged, this Court has also insisted on the petitioner impleading those responsible for the malafides to be impleaded in their personal capacity and specific averments thereof to find a place in the petitions before this Court. 8. On the facts of the instant case, while we find there was no allegation of factual malafides, the arguments of the learned counsel are geared to establish the legal malafides in that the employer has not adhered to the guidelines in force while effecting the transfer. On a consideration of the specific allegations regarding non-compliance of the guidelines, we find **O.P. (CATs). 9 & 10/2022 - 10 -** that the allegations cannot be sustained, since it is apparent from a reading of the impugned order of the Tribunal that the respondents had clearly brought on record the files which showed a detailed consideration of the case of the petitioners by the placement board and thereafter a notification of the decision of transfer by the Principal Controller of Defence Account (NAVY), the 3[rd] respondent herein. 9. We also find that the allegations regarding noncompliance with the guidelines especially when it came to the education of the children, was adequately addressed, on a prima facie basis, by the interim order dated 9-2-2022 of this Court which permitted the petitioners to continue in Kochi till such time as the X standard examinations of the academic year was over. It is not in dispute at this stage that the academic year would come to close. The said ground cannot be a reason to impugn the transfer order any longer. The other reason with regard to the posting of the petitioners in the same station as their husbands for the purposes of discharging their role as the homemaker and caregiver, we find will not enure to the benefit of the petitioners for more reasons than one. Firstly, the petitioners are admittedly in Kochi, for over eight years now. Secondly, the mere fact that the petitioners are ladies cannot by itself and without anything more, by way of exceptional hardship, enable them to insulate themselves from a transfer, more so, when the transfer is not a general transfer but one which was necessitated in the exigencies of service and to **O.P. (CATs). 9 & 10/2022 - 11 -** serve the needs of the employer. The decision of the Supreme Court in **SK Nausad Rahaman's case (supra)** has to be distinguished on that basis. As regards, the other decisions cited by the learned counsel, we find that the decision in **Ramadhar Pandey's case (supra)** was one that held in the absence of material to show that the transfer was in public interest, a transfer could not be legally sustained. We are at a loss to understand how the said decision can be relevant under the facts of the instant case where admittedly even going by the transfer order the transfer was necessitated on account of a particular contingency noticed by the employer. The decision of the Delhi High Court in **Union of India and Ors v. Yogender Mittal [W.P.(C).No.6726 of 2015]** is also clearly distinguishable on facts since, that was a case where the relevant placement board had cursorily considered the transfer of numerous employees and without reference to any particular employee and under those circumstances, the court found that there had to be a deliberation on the part of the placement committee regarding the exigency which necessitated the recommendation to transfer the employees in violation of the guidelines. As already noticed above, in the instant case, there was a deliberation by the placement committee on the specific issue raised by the employer namely, the deficiency of personnel in the Bombay office. Thus, in any view of the matter, we find themselves unable to accept the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners, and for the reasons stated above and for the reasons stated in the well considered order of the Tribunal, we dismiss the Original Petitions (CATs.) **O.P. (CATs). 9 & 10/2022 - 12 -** We make it clear that the dismissal of these OP (CATs) will not deprive the petitioners of the benefits if any that flow from the directions issued by the Tribunal based on Annexure-A19 Circular. **Sd/-A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE** **Sd/-MOHAMMED NIAS C.P JUDGE** _ani/_ **O.P. (CATs). 9 & 10/2022 - 13 -** ## **APPENDIX OF OP (CAT) 10/2022** PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 180/517/2021 DATED 06/10/2021 ALONG WITH ANNEXURES. Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER BEARING NO. AN/1/39 DATED 30/08/2021, ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. Annexure A13 A TRUE COPY OF EMAIL COMMUNICATION FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ITS ATTACHMENT, BEARING ADMIN ORDER NO.11 DATED 03/09/2021 FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT. Annexure A15(A) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. AN/I/39 DATED 04/10/2021 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION BEARING NO. AN-I/1201/SC/82/2011 DATED 31/12/2013 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT. Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF TRANSFER POLICY COMMUNICATED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT UNDER NO.0600/AN-X/VOL. XXI DATED 28/03/2014. Annexure A3(A) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO. AN/II/2153/GEN DATED 15/06/2015 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT AMENDING ANNEXURE A2. Annexure A4 TRUE COY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO. AN/X/10001/2/2014 DATED 21ST SEPTEMBER, 2015 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT. Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF REQUEST IN THE PRESCRIBED PRO-FORMA DATED 18/10/2019, WITH ALL THE ANNEXURES, PLACES OF REQUEST, THRISSUR, KANNUR OR BANGALORE. **O.P. (CATs). 9 & 10/2022 - 14 -** |Annexure A6|TRUE COPY OF REQUEST IN THE| |---|---| ||PRESCRIBED PRO-FORMA DATED 29/07/2020| ||WITH ALL THE ANNEXURES, PLACES OF| ||REQUEST, THRISSUR ONLY.| |Annexure A7|TRUE COPY OF REQUEST IN THE| ||PRESCRIBED PRO-FORMA DATED 28/07/2020| ||WITH ALL THE ANNEXURES, PLACES OF| ||REQUEST, THRISSUR ONLY.| |Annexure A8|TRUE<br>COPY<br>OF<br>LETTER<br>NO.| ||K/AN/258/TINOUT<br>DATED<br>04/08/2021| ||ISSUED BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT.| |Annexure A9|TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION| ||DATED 01/09/2021 ADDRESSED TO THE| ||THIRD RESPONDENT.| |Annexure A10|TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER BEARING NO.| ||K/AN/TIN/OUT DATED 1ST SEPTEMBER,| ||2021<br>ISSUED<br>BY<br>THE<br>FOURTH| ||RESPONDENT.| |Annexure A11|A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN OA| ||NO.433/2021 DATED 03/09/2021 OF THIS| ||HON'BLE TRIBUNAL.| |Annexure A13|A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED| ||06/09/2021.| |Exhibit P2|A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT| ||FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS IN THE OA| ||517/2021 ALONG WITH ANNEXURES.| |Annexure R(A)|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.| ||AN/X/10001/2/2013<br>DATED<br>07/09/2015| ||ISSUED BY THE CONTROLLER GENERAL OF| ||DEFENCE ACCOUNTS.| |Annexure R(B)|TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF DAPB| ||MEETING HELD ON 26/08/2021.| |Annexure R(C)|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 46 DATED| ||02/09/2021 ISSUED BY THE AREA| ||ACCOUNTS OFFICE, VISHAKHAPATNAM TO| ||RELIEVE TO ASSISTANT ACCOUNTS| ||OFFICERS<br>FROM<br>AREA<br>ACCOUNTS| ||OFFICERS, VISHAKHAPATNAM.| |Annexure R(D)|TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.| **O.P. (CATs). 9 & 10/2022 - 15 -** ||AN/II/2151/DPC/AAO TO AO/DPC DATED| |---|---| ||16/08/2021 ISSUED BY THE CONTROLLER| ||GENERAL<br>OF<br>DEFENCE<br>ACCOUNTS| ||NOTIFYING PROMOTION FROM AAOS TO| ||AO.| |Annexure R(E)|TRUE<br>COPY<br>OF<br>THE<br>VOLUNTARY| ||APPLICATION FOR TRANSFER OF THE| ||APPLICANT<br>REFLECTING<br>THE| ||COMMENCEMENT OF SERVICE AT KOCHI.| |Exhibit P3|A TRUE COPY OF REJOINDER FILED BY THE| ||APPLICANT ALONG WITH ANNEXURES.| |Annexure A15|A TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR NO. AN/1/39| ||DATED 16/10/2019 ISSUED FROM THE| ||OFFICE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.| |Annexure A16|TRUE COPY OF A LETTER BEARING NO.| ||AN/X/10050/10/2017<br>DATED<br>15/09/2017| ||RESPONDENTS.| |Annexure A17|TRUE COPY OF A LETTER BEARING NO.| ||AN/X/10050/10/2014<br>DATED<br>08/08/2014| ||ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT.| |Annexure A18|TRUE<br>COPY<br>OF<br>CIRCULAR<br>NO.| ||AN/X/10050/10/2014<br>DATED<br>05/04/2019| ||ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT.| |Annexure A19|A TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR BEARING NO.| ||0600/AN-X/VOL.XXI(PC) DATED 06/02/2020| ||ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT.| |Annexure A20|A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER BEARING NO.| ||AN/XI/11056/ROSTER CORR/2019 DATED| ||13/05/2020 ISSUED BY THE SECOND| ||RESPONDENT.| |Exhibit P4|TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL REPLY| ||STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS| ||IN THE ABOVE OA 517/2021.| |Exhibit P5|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE| ||CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN| ||OA 517/2021 DATED 27/01/2022.| |Exhibit P6|TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER BEARING NO.| ||PERS/TRF.AAOS/9010/1/BL/2022/TR-09 TO 21| ||DATED 17/01/2022 ISSUED BY THE| **O.P. (CATs). 9 & 10/2022 - 16 -** ACCOUNTS OFFICER (PERS) TO THE PCDS, BANGALORE. Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ADMIN ORDER NO. 02 DATED 04/02/2022 ISSUED BY THE DCDA IN CHARGE. Exhibit-P8 A true copy of the application for CCL dated 01.04.2022 submitted by the petitioner. Exhibit-P9 A true copy of the letter bearing No.AN/II/601/LEAVE dated 27.04.2022, issued by the Senior Accounts Officer. **O.P. (CATs). 9 & 10/2022 - 17 -** ## **APPENDIX OF OP (CAT) 9/2022** ## PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 180/516/2021 DATED 06/10/2021 ALONG WITH ANNEXURES. Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER BEARING NO. AN/1/39 DATED 30/08/2021, ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. Annexure A13 A TRUE COPY OF EMAIL COMMUNICATION FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ITS ATTACHMENT, BEARING ADMIN ORDER NO.11 DATED 03/09/2021 FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT. Annexure A15(A) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. AN/I/39 DATED 04/10/2021 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION BEARING NO. AN-I/1201/SC/82/2011 DATED 31/12/2013 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT. Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF TRANSFER POLICY COMMUNICATED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT UNDER NO.0600/AN-X/VOL. XXI DATED 28/03/2014. Annexure A3(A) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO. ANII2153/GEN DATED 15/06/2015 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT AMENDING ANNEXURE A2. Annexure A4 TRUE COY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO. AN/X/10001/2/2014 DATED 21ST SEPTEMBER, 2015 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT. Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF REQUEST IN THE PRESCRIBED PRO-FORMA DATED 18/07/2019, WITH ALL THE ANNEXURES, PLACES OF REQUEST, KOLLAM, KOTTAYAM OR PATHANAMTHITTA. Annexure A6 TRUE COPY OF REQUEST IN THE PRESCRIBED **O.P. (CATs). 9 & 10/2022 - 18 -** PRO-FORMA DATED 22/10/2019, WITH ALL THE ANNEXURES, PLACES OF REQUEST, KOLLAM, KOTTAYAM OR PATHANAMTHITTA. - Annexure A7 TRUE COPY OF REQUEST IN THE PRESCRIBED PRO-FORMA DATED 10/08/2020, WITH ALL THE ANNEXURES, PLACES OF REQUEST, KOLLAM, KOTTAYAM OR PATHANAMTHITTA. - Annexure A8 TRUE COPY OF REQUEST IN THE PRESCRIBED PRO-FORMA DATED 27/07/2021 WITH ALL THE ANNEXURES, PLACES OF REQUEST, KOLLAM, KOTTAYAM OR PATHANAMTHITTA. - Annexure A9 TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO. K/AN/258/TINOUT DATED 04/08/2021 ISSUED BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT. - Annexure A10 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 01/09/2021 ADDRESSED TO THE THIRD RESPONDENT. - Annexure A11 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER BEARING NO. K/AN/TIN/OUT DATED 1ST SEPTEMBER, 2021 ISSUED BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT. - Annexure A12 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN OA NO.432/2021 DATED 03/09/2021. - Annexure A14 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 06/09/2021. - Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS IN THE OA 516/2021 ALONG WITH ANNEXURES. Annexure R(A) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. AN/X/10001/2/2013 DATED 07/09/2015 ISSUED BY THE CONTROLLER GENERAL OF DEFENCE ACCOUNTS. Annexure R(B) TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF DAPB MEETING HELD ON 26/08/2021. Annexure R(C) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 46 DATED 02/09/2021 ISSUED BY THE AREA ACCOUNTS OFFICE, VISHAKHAPATNAM TO RELIEVE TO ASSISTANT ACCOUNTS OFFICERS FROM AREA ACCOUNTS OFFICERS, VISHAKHAPATNAM. **O.P. (CATs). 9 & 10/2022 - 19 -** |Annexure R(D)|TRUE<br>COPY<br>OF<br>THE<br>LETTER<br>NO.| |---|---| ||AN/II/2151/DPC/AAO<br>TO<br>AO/DPC<br>DATED| ||16/08/2021 ISSUED BY THE CONTROLLER| ||GENERAL OF DEFENCE ACCOUNTS NOTIFYING| ||PROMOTION FROM AAOS TO AO.| |Annexure R(E)|TRUE COPY OF THE VOLUNTARY APPLICATION| ||FOR<br>TRANSFER<br>OF<br>THE<br>APPLICANT| ||REFLECTING THE COMMENCEMENT OF| ||SERVICE AT KOCHI.| |Exhibit P3|A TRUE COPY OF REJOINDER FILED BY THE| ||APPLICANT ALONG WITH ANNEXURES.| |Annexure A15(A)|A TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR NO. AN/1/39 DATED| ||16/10/2019 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE| ||3RD RESPONDENT.| |Annexure A16|TRUE COPY OF A LETTER BEARING NO.| ||AN/X/10050/10/2017<br>DATED<br>15/09/2017| ||RESPONDENTS.| |Annexure A17|TRUE COPY OF A LETTER BEARING NO.| ||AN/X/10050/10/2014 DATED 08/08/2014 ISSUED| ||BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT.| |Annexure A18|TRUE<br>COPY<br>OF<br>CIRCULAR<br>NO.| ||AN/X/10050/10/2014 DATED 05/04/2019 ISSUED| ||BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT.| |Annexure A19|A TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR BEARING NO.| ||0600/AN-X/VOL.XXI(PC)<br>DATED<br>06/02/2020| ||ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT.| |Annexure A20|A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER BEARING NO.| ||AN/XI/11056/ROSTER<br>CORR/2019<br>DATED| ||13/05/2020<br>ISSUED<br>BY<br>THE<br>SECOND| ||RESPONDENT.| |Exhibit P4|TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL REPLY| ||STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS IN| ||THE ABOVE OA 516/2021.| |Exhibit P5|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE| ||CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN OA| ||516/2021 DATED 27/01/2022.| |Exhibit P6|TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER BEARING NO.| ||PERS/TRF.AAOS/9010/1/BL/2022/TR-09 TO 21| ||DATED 17/01/2022 ISSUED BY THE ACCOUNTS| **O.P. (CATs). 9 & 10/2022 - 20 -** OFFICER (PERS) TO THE PCDS, BANGALORE. Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ADMIN ORDER NO. 02 DATED 04/02/2022 ISSUED BY THE DCDA IN CHARGE. - Exhibit-P8 A true copy of the order bearing No.AN/II/2151/DPC/AAO to AO/DPC 2021 dated 16.08.2021. - Exhibit-P9 A true copy of the application for CCL dated 01.04.2022 submitted by the petitioner. - Exhibit-P10 A true copy of the letter bearing No.AN/II/601/LEAVE dated 27.04.2022, issued by the Senior Accounts Officer. - Exhibit-P11 A true copy of the order bearing No.10062/6/2022 dated 05.04.2022. **O.P. (CATs). 9 & 10/2022 - 21 -**