Subsequent transfer rendering the challenged posting moot leaves no surviving grievance for adjudication.

The applicant, a Postal Assistant, sought transfer nearer to his native place on the ground that his wife had joined as a Counsellor at the ART Centre, PRM Medical College, Baripada.

He relied on the DoP&T Office Memorandum dated 30.09.2009 concerning consideration of requests for posting husband and wife at the same station.

He alleged that, instead of considering his request dated 10.03.2022, the respondents transferred another employee and posted him at Karanjia MDG, approximately 130 kilometres from Baripada and 180 kilometres from his native place.

After joining, he submitted another representation dated 29.10.2023 seeking transfer to an office at Baripada without transfer-related allowances.

The respondents contended that the applicant had earlier been caught by the CBI while allegedly accepting a bribe, resulting in registration of a criminal case that remained pending.

Following revocation of his suspension, he was posted to a non-sensitive post.

Since he did not exercise an option for transfer, the Divisional Level Transfer and Placement Committee recommended his rotational transfer to Karanjia MDG, where he joined.

During the pendency of the O.A., he was transferred and posted to Udala SO under Baripada HO, joining there on 07.10.2024.

Whether the applicant was entitled to a direction for transfer nearer to his native place or to Baripada under the DoP&T O.M. dated 30.09.2009 concerning posting of spouses at the same station.

Whether the O.A. remained maintainable for adjudication after the applicant was transferred to Udala SO under Baripada HO during its pendency.

The Tribunal referred to the DoP&T O.M. No. 28034/9/2009-Estt.(A) dated 30.09.2009, which confers discretion on the competent authorities to consider requests for posting husband and wife at the same station.

The Tribunal also applied the procedural principle that proceedings become infructuous where the subsequent administrative action has substantially or completely addressed the grievance forming the subject matter of the application.

No statutory provision or judicial precedent was substantively applied to decide the applicant’s entitlement on merits.

The Tribunal did not determine whether the applicant’s request was required to be accepted under the DoP&T O.M. or whether the respondents’ earlier posting decision was arbitrary.

It noted that the applicant had subsequently been transferred to Udala SO, under Baripada HO, and had joined there on 07.10.2024.

Since this subsequent posting effectively removed the grievance arising from his earlier posting at Karanjia MDG, there was no surviving dispute requiring adjudication.

The Tribunal therefore treated the O.A. as having become infructuous.

The application, along with any pending miscellaneous applications, was accordingly disposed of as infructuous.

No order as to costs was made; costs were left easy.