A) I have been working in a central govt establish under MoD. We were having 2 separate rotational transfer policies for Group 'A' and Group 'B' officers. These policies have been in vogue since 1982. As per these policies Group 'A' officers will be rotated every 5 years and Gp 'B' officers will be rotated every 10 years to other stations. All of a sudden they revised these transfer policies and reduced the tenure of group 'B officers to 7 years without quoting any proper reasons, but the tenure for group 'A' officer is retained as same as earlier (5 years). Due to the above revision, i being a group 'B' officer has to move now as i have completed 7 years. b) Can the revision of the policy be questioned as they have done all of sudden? coz we have planned our domestic and personal commitments such as loan, children's study etc by keeping the 10 years tenure. c) Notwithstanding, only Technical personnel were included in the old policy, however in the new policy (common policy) included non - technical personnel also. But, non technical personnel thro their association and union strength approached DDP secretary and managed to get abeyance only in r/o Non technical people. Now only the sufferers are technical people. d) Please clarify the following. i) Can the policy be kept at abeyance only for non tech and implemented for tech people as mentioned above? ii) can we approach CAT by quoting the disparity in implementation and get abeyance for technical people also? iii) can they reduce the tenure from 10 years to 7 years as they want?
Ask a question and receive multiple answers in one hour.
Lawyers are available now to answer your questions.
How to get rid of this situation as i have 3 more years tenure as per the old policy? please suggest me the correct way to approach....
you can approach the CAT for unfair and illogical principle behind amending this rule.
government is bound to establish rational classification for taking this decision, if it is not proved then old policy will be restored.
you can also file a writ before the high court under article 226. high court has vast jurisdiction the court has power to decide constitutionality of this rule and it can render this policy ultra virus.
1) the old policy was always applicable only for technical employees
2) non technical employees were never covered hence the policy was kept in abeyance for them
3) 7 years period for transfer to othe stations is reasonable for group B
4) even as on date transfer of group A is done 5 years
5) CAT would not grant stay
BY knowing that non tech is included for the 1st time, new policy was issued. Now, how can they keep it at abeyance only for non tech by quoting this? Notwithstanding, its a common policy for tech and non tech. How can they partially keep a policy only for non tech and implement for tech people?
transfer policy was never applicable for non tech employees in the past
policy for non tech has only been kept in abeyance and not scrapped
after wider consultation the policy would be made applicable for non tech employees also or scrapped
b. You cannot question the authority on policy or decision making issues.
The decision to reduce the tenure of Gp-B officers at one station would have been taken by the authorities after due consideration and it is a government police based decision. You can obtain the rules by which this change was enforced and confirm the reasons.
c. If there is a precedence to it, why dont you non-technical union also try and do it, the union office bearers can be approached for desired relief.
d. 1. First of all clarify what has happened internally and why technical union people maintain silence, this is an internal matter for which decisions are to be taken locally.
ii. Without exhausting the remedies locally, you will not get any relief from CAT or any legal forum.
iii. It is a policy decision, you can challenge it in the court of law if you are aggrieved over it.
How to get rid of this situation as i have 3 more years tenure as per the old policy?
please suggest me the correct way to approach....
You should wait for the transfer orders to be issued to you, you can approach the authorities with a representation and then the court of law only after you are aggrieved and not before that.
BY knowing that non tech is included for the 1st time, new policy was issued. Now, how can they keep it at abeyance only for non tech by quoting this? Notwithstanding, its a common policy for tech and non tech. How can they partially keep a policy only for non tech and implement for tech people?
All such observations can be raised by the union as a body to represent the affected employees, hence you may pressurise the union for this.
Otherwise if you are affected, then you can ,make a personal representation to the management or the authority, get a negative reply and then approach the appropriate legal forum seeking relief, remedy and justice.