Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Awasthi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.B. Pandey, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India and Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Varun Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite parties.
By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed following reliefs:
"i. Issue a writ in the nature of CERTIORARI to quash/ set-aside the Movement Order/ I.A.F. Route Form dated 19.07.2021 passed by Opposite party No.-4 and to quash/ set-aside the order dated 23.07.2021 passed by opposite party no.-3 ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS commanding the opposite party no.-4 to stay operation/ revoke the posting of petitioner from ADV HQ CAC (Legal Duties) to 23 ED w.e.f. 10.05.2021 (Trade Duties (Equipment Assistant) vide Letter No.2021/AFRO/RDC/289 dated 23.03.2021.
iii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to not change the trade of petitioner and he remain be posted to legal duties wherever he posted at PAN India."
Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that earlier the petitioner approached this court by filing writ petition bearing Service Single No.15014 of 2021 (Annexure No.9) challenging the transfer order and this Court vide order dated 19.7.2021, permitted the petitioner to prefer a representation to the authority concerned and the authority concerned was directed to pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law. As per learned counsel for the petitioner on 19.7.2021, the order was passed by this Court and on the same date, the impugned order has been passed, which is a movement order directing the petitioner to submit his joining at the place of posting on 1.8.2021. Therefore, contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that when this Court has passed the order dated 19.7.2021 and the said order was properly communicated to the opposite party concerned, the appropriate decision should be taken by the concerning opposite party first before issuing the movement order. However, he has submitted that the petitioner has no objection to submit his joining at the transferred place. The petitioner's limited grievance is that his nature of duty be not changed and he be assigned the legal duty, which he has been doing for the last seven years.
On that, Sri S.B. Pandey, learned ASG has submitted that the movement order has been passed strictly as per request of the petitioner and so far as the disposal of the representation of the petitioner is concerned, the same shall definitely be disposed of by speaking and reasoned order and strictly in accordance with law, for that some more time may be given to the authority concerned to pass appropriate orders.
Be that as it may, since the petitioner has no objection to submit his joining at the transferred place, therefore, no interference would be required in the movement order dated 19.7.2021 and the petitioner may submit his joining at the transferred place within time stipulated in the movement order itself. So far as his request regarding assigning the legal duty is concerned, the authority concerned shall take appropriate decision on the representation of the petitioner with promptness, preferably within a period of 15 days from today strictly in accordance with law and decision thereof shall be communicated to the petitioner forthwith. It is also made clear that if the petitioner submits his joining at the transferred place and starts discharging duties, as asked to him, even then his representation shall be considered and appropriate order shall be passed in terms of the order of this Court and no prejudice shall be caused to the petitioner for submitting his joining pursuant to the movement order in question.
In the aforesaid terms, the writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 29.7.2021 RBS/-
[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]