B SASIBUSHAN REDDY (M) , vs DEPT OF POSTS (M) ,

oA/021/00604t2020 HYDERABAD, this the 30th day of September,2020 Hon'ble Mr.

Ashish Kalia, Judl.

Member Hon'ble Mr.

B.V.

Sudhakar, Admn.

Member B.Sasibushan Reddy S/o Late Jaganmohan Reddy, Aged about 39 years, Occ : Gramin Dak Sevak Delivery Agent, Gr'C', Venkatapuram Branch Post Office, A/w Yemrpalelm Sub Post Office, Madira Sub Division, Khamam Districtt. (By Advocate : Mr.B.Pavan Kumar) Vs. l.Union of India rep by the Chief Postmaster General, Telangana Circle, Abids, Hyderabad-500001.

2.

The Postmaster Ceneral, Hyderabad Region, Hyderabad-500001 .

3.

The Superintendent ofPost Offices, Khammam Division, Khammarn-507 003. (By Advocate : Mr.

A.Praveen I(umar Yadav, Addl.CGSC) oA604/2020 ...Applicant ....Respondents CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH I oA604/2020 ORAL ORDER (As per Hon'ble Mr.B.V.Sudhakar, Administrative Member) Th ro us h Vid eo C o nfe re nc i ng : The O.A. is filed challenging the action of the respondents in not considering any ofthe options submitted by the applicant for the purpose of posting, while declaring his post Assistant Branch Postmaster as surplus vide letter dated 14.9.2020.

The brief facts of the case are that the post of the applicant namely Assistant Branch Postmaster, MCA4D, Venkatapuram Branch Post Office was declared as surplus bv the respondents vide their letter dated 14.9.2020.

Consequent to declaration of the post as surplus, the applicant has to be posted in a place of his choice is the claim of the applicant.

However, the respondents instead ofposting him in the place ofchoice indicated by him directed him to join in other places than those preferred by him.

The contentions ofthe applicant revolve around the fact that it is the respondents who declared his post as surplus.

Therefore, having declared the post as surplus, they should allow him tojoin in a place ofhis choice.

Instead of doin-e so, the respondents are forcing him to join other places, which is unfair according to the applicant. applicant.

4 Heard Sri B.

Pavan Kumar, leamed counsel for the applicant and Mr.

A.

Praveen Kumar Yadav Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents, and perused the records.

It is not undel dispute that the post of the applicant has been declared as surplus.

After declaring the post as surplus, respondents are 5 2 Y 0A 604i2020 going to accommodate him in some other post.

While doing so, the applicant claims that the place of choice preferred by him should be considered.

However, the appricant claims that the respondents have not agreed to the same and are trying to post the applicant to a far offlocation.

Consequently, being apprehensive that he will be posted to a far offplace, e applicant made a rep'esentation on22.09.2020.

The Staff union of the Gramina Dak Sevaks has also taken up the issue with the respondents on 23.9.2020 and requested to takc a favourabre view in applicant's cass.

In view of the above, it would bc fair and proper on our part to direct the respondents to disposc of the representation made by the applicant on 22.9.2020 in terms of the rcrcvant rures and in accordance with law by issuing a reasoned and speaking order within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

The rc:;pondents are directed accordingly.

They are further directed to maintain strtus quo for a period of one week from the date of disposal of the reprcscntation in order to enable the applicant to approach the Tribunal, in crsc he is aggrieved with the decision of the respondents.

With the above direction, the O.A. is disposed of at the admission stage.

There shall be no order as to costs.