RAJARAMAN.E. V. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

WP(C)/24158/2010

AI Insights

Rajaraman E., a Member (Judicial) of the Railway Claims Tribunal, challenged his transfer to Bhubaneshwar, arguing that it was done without proper guidelines and did not follow the principles set by the Supreme Court in Ajay Gandhi and another V. B. Singh and Others. The High Court of Kerala, however, found that the Chairman had the authority to transfer members and that the transfer was justified as it was to fill an existing vacancy. The court also noted that there was no requirement for the Chairman to consult others before making such a decision, distinguishing the case from the cited Supreme Court judgment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 722465 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 03-08-2010
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Ajay Gandhi and another V. B. Singh and Others (2004 AIR SCW 298)
• Laws Referred To: Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: N B SUNIL NATH
• Assessee Lawyers: T C GOVINDA SWAMY; G RAJ
• Keywords: Central Administrative Tribunal; Guidelines; Judicial member; Jurisdiction; Railway Claims Tribunal; Transfer
• Section: 5; 4(3)(b)

Judgement Text

" IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 3RD AUGUST 2010 / 12TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 24158 of 2010(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- RAJARAMAN E., AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.ETHIARAJULU, MEMBER/JUDICIAL/RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, RESIDING AT NO.5-A, SANTHI SAVERA APARTMENTS, WARIAM ROAD, COCHIN-682016. BY ADV. SRI.T.C.GOVINDA SWAMY SRI.G.SHYAM RAJ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS, NEW DELHI. 2. THE CHAIRMAN, RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NO.13/15 MALL ROAD, DELHI-110 054. 3. THE ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR, RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NO.13/15 MALL ROAD, DELHI-110 054. 4. THE ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR, RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM-682010. 5. THE HON'BLE VICE-CHAIRMAN, THE RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI-1. BY ADV. SRI. N.B. SUNILNATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.24158 OF 2010(T) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of August, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the Member (Judicial) of Railway Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam. By Ext.P1 order issued by the 2nd respondent, he has been transferred and posted as Member(Judl.)Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneshwar against an existing vacancy. Challenging this order petitioner had filed O.A.No.451/3020 before the Central Administrative Tribunal Ernakulam. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal dismissed the said application. Challenging the said order passed by the Tribunal, petitioner filed W.P(c).No.22859/2010 before this court. During the hearing of the writ petition this court has passed orders dated 30th July, 2010 and 2nd August, 2010, doubting the very jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal to entertain the application and clarifying that it will be open to the petitioner to take recourse to the remedies that are available to him. It is taking advantage of the liberty so given by this court that the present writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P1 order of transfer. WPC.No. 24158/2010 :2 : 2. On facts it is seen that in pursuance to the provisions contained in Section 5 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, by Ext.P2 order dated 29.11.1006, the petitioner was appointed as Member (Judl.) of the Railway Claims Tribunal,Bangalore Bench for a period of 5 years. Going by the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in 2007 petitioner was transferred and posted at Guwahati Bench. Subsequently, in July, 2007, petitioner was again transferred and was posted to Ernakulam Bench. It is from Ernakulam Bench that he is now transferred by Ext.P1 to Bhubaneshwar. Contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that the power of transfer has been exercised without any guidelines and therefore is bad. It is also contended that in the matter of transfer the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Ajay Gandhi and another V. B. Singh and Others (2004 AIR SCW 298) have not been followed. 3. In so far as the first contention raised is concerned, section 4 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 provides for the composition of the Tribunal and Benches thereof. Section 4(3)(b) enables the Chairman to transfer a Vice Chairman or other member WPC.No. 24158/2010 :3 : from one Bench to another Bench. Therefore the power of transfer conferred on the chairman is undisputed. As regards the contention that it has been exercised without guidelines, in my view, at least in the facts of this case, that contention is unsustainable. This is for the reason that Ext.P1 order itself shows that the transfer of the petitioner is against the existing vacancy which is presently available at Bhubaneshwar. Since power to order transfer is available to the Chairman under Section 4(3)(b) of the Act, taking note of the existence of a vacancy at Bhubaneshwar, if the petitioner is posted to that vacancy, I do not think that this court will be justified in concluding that the power has been exercised in an arbitrary manner. 4. In so far as the other contention that the principles laid down in the Apex Court judgment in Ajay Gandhi's case have not been followed is concerned, that was a case dealing with the appointments and transfers of members of Income Tax Tribunal. In para 22 of the said judgment, the Apex Court has held that although it is not necessary for the President of the Tribunal to consult Senior Vice President, in fairness the President should WPC.No. 24158/2010 :4 : consult the senior Vice President keeping in view of the fact that a large number of members are functioning in different places and thus it may sometimes become impossible for the President to know the intellect or otherwise of the member for the purpose of his positing including his efficiency, disposal and other relevant factors. First of all there is nothing on material to conclude that facts, such as number of members, number of Benches etc., of the Railway Claims Tribunal are similar in nature. Secondly, it is for the Chairman of the Tribunal to decide about the transfers and postings and there is no material in this writ petition to infer that the Chairman has not considered the relevant aspects before passing the impugned order. That apart in this case also there is no provision in the Railway Claims Tribunal Act providing that the Chairman should consult the Vice Chairman or anybody else while effecting orders of transfer. Therefore also, the directions issued by the Apex Court in exercise of its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution cannot be of universal application. In these circumstances, I do not think that the second contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner also is of any merit. WPC.No. 24158/2010 :5 : writ Petition fails and is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ "