Manoj Kumar vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.

Held

The High Court held that the Central Administrative Tribunal ought not to have dismissed the Original Application. The Court reasoned that every government employee is entitled to represent their grievances, and it is the duty of the government-employer to at least consider such representations and communicate its decision with reasons. The Court found that the petitioner was seeking consideration of his representation, which is a legitimate request. Therefore, the High Court set aside the impugned order of the CAT and directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 10.02.2017 regarding repatriation from GST and Excise, Delhi Zone to GST and Excise, Ahmedabad Zone within three months and to communicate their decision to the petitioner.

Facts

The petitioner, Manoj Kumar, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging an order dated 20.02.2019 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). The CAT had dismissed the petitioner's Original Application (O.A.) No. 573/2019. In his O.A., the petitioner sought a direction to the respondents to consider his representation dated 10.02.2017, wherein he requested repatriation from the GST and Excise, Delhi Zone to the GST and Excise, Ahmedabad Zone. The CAT dismissed the O.A. on the grounds that the petitioner's lien period in the Ahmedabad Zone had ended on 18.08.2018, rendering his request moot.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal erred in dismissing the petitioner's Original Application seeking consideration of his representation for repatriation, solely on the basis that his lien period had expired. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the respondents should be directed to consider his representation in light of the present circumstances and pass an order thereon. He contended that every government employee has a right to represent grievances, and it is the duty of the employer to consider such representations and communicate a reasoned decision. Revenue's contention: The learned counsel for respondent No.1 (Union of India) did not oppose the limited prayer of the petitioner for consideration of his representation.