AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
O R D E R
Shri N.P. Singh, counsel for the applicant and S/Shri Prashant Mathur, Anil Kumar, counsel for the respondents are present and heard.
The instant O.A. has been filed by the applicant challenging the impugned transfer order dated 15.09.2026 as well as relieving order dated 17.09.2026 whereby the applicant has been transfer from the present place of posting North Central Railway to Eastern Railway in the same capacity i.e. SAG/IRSEE. The applicant has also challenged the relieving order dated 17.09.2026.
Brief facts of the case, as per pleadings in the O.A., are that during the service period, the applicant has frequently been transferred from one place to another as the respondents have regularly trying to disturb the applicant. It is claimed by the applicant that he has been working on non-sensitive post. Prior to present transfer order, the applicant has made request with the respondent No. 2 and 3 to post him at Railway Board, CRIS and R.D.S.O. at New Delhi. The applicant has assailed the impugned transfer order on the ground that the transfer order has been passed with malafide intention just to accommodate one Shri Subhash Chandra. Counsel for the applicant submitted that the wife of applicant is working as Associate Professor with Dr. B.R. Ambedkar University, Agra and the younger daughter of applicant is studying at Agra in Class XIth and the transfer order has been passed in mid academic session. The applicant has also assailed the transfer order on the ground that he has been transferred about 1600 Kms. away from his native place and near about 1300 km. from spouse working place hence, the transfer order is against the Circular dated 31.08.2015. Counsel for the applicant has relied upon para-(vii), (viii) and (xvi) of the aforesaid circular. It is also alleged by the applicant that being SC/ST officer, he has been victimized by the respondents hence, the transfer order as well as relieving order is liable to be quashed. It is further pleaded that as per Circular dated 24.12.1985, applicant being SC employee should be posted near to his native place. Counsel for the applicant submitted that the representation moved by the applicant on 16.09.2026 against the transfer order dated 15.09.2026 is still pending for consideration.
Counsel for the applicant has relied upon the case of Shobh Ram V. State of H.P. and another, decided by the Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh High Court on 20.05.2004.
Counsel for the respondents submitted that in pursuance to the transfer order dated 15.09.2026, the applicant has been relieved on 17.09.2026 and in place of applicant Shri R.R. Lazarus has taken over the charge. It is alleged by the respondents that the applicant has deliberately concealed the material fact that he had filed previously two OAs before this Tribunal i.e. O.A. No 999/2022 and O.A. No. 1117/2022. Earlier, the transfer order dated 04.11.2022 with regard to the applicant was cancelled and consequently the applicant remained posted at North Central Railway Headquarters, Prayagraj. The second Original Application being O.A. No. 1117/2022 is concerned, the same was filed challenging the Transfer Order dated 14.12.2022 issued by the Railway Board upon his promotion/appointment to officiate in the Senior Administrative Grade (SAG), whereby he was transferred to Southern Railway, Chennai. However, upon his representation, the said transfer was cancelled by the Railway Board vide Cancellation Order dated 17.02.2023, and the applicant continued to be posted as Chief Electrical General Engineer (CEGE), SAG, North Central Railway, HQ, Prayagraj. Counsel for the respondents submitted that the applicant has been serving in the North Central Railway since 30.04.2005. The applicant has now once again challenged the impugned transfer order dated 15.09.2026 on identical, illusory grounds relying upon the instructions dated 24.12.1985 of Railway Board dealing with the posting of SC/ST employees. The RBE No. 89/2018 dated 19.06.2018 is also relied upon by counsel for the applicant, however, in the case of present applicant is not applicable as it belongs to Group ‘C’ and Group ‘D’ employee. As far as the applicant's claim regarding the alleged non-adherence to the Comprehensive Transfer Policy for Railway Officers dated 31.08.2015 is concerned, it is submitted that the said policy was issued in supersession of all existing instructions. The applicant has placed reliance on Paragraphs (vii) and (xvi) of the policy, which in any view of the matter do not help the applicant, as he belongs to the Indian Railway Service of Electrical Engineers (IRSEE) and holds an All-India Transfer Liability, and he cannot be permitted to raise such grounds. Paragraph (vii) of the policy stipulates that normally the minimum tenure will be two years and the maximum tenure five years, however, this provision applies to Inter-Zonal Transfers of Railway Officers and not to Intra-Zonal/Inter-Railway transfers issued by the competent authority on account of administrative needs, as is the instant case where the applicant has been transferred from North Central Railway to Eastern Railway, Kolkata. Regarding paragraph (xvi) of the Policy dated 31.08.2015, it is submitted that the applicant has no vested or statutory right to a specific posting, as these policies are merely administrative guidelines. Moreover, efforts are to be made to post husband and wife at the same station, as detailed in the DoP&T's Circular dated 30.09.2009. Apparently, the applicant has filed this O.A. concealing the facts and trying to mislead this Tribunal by presenting wrong facts for gaining undue sympathy/benefits. Hence, the respondents have prayed for dismissal of the O.A.
Heard submission of counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order passed by the respondents’ authority.
Through this O.A., the applicant is challenging the impugned transfer order as well as relieving order. This is the third round of litigation by the applicant to keep him posted in North Central Railway on various grounds. Firstly, through O.A. No. 999/2022, against the impugned order dated 04.11.2022 transferring him to Central Railway, Bhusawal, he has prayed for to allow him to retain at the present place of posting, which was decided by this Tribunal vide Order and Judgment dated 11.11.2022 disposing the O.A. with direction to the respondents to consider the representation of applicant. The respondents considered the request of applicant and cancelled the transfer order. Again the applicant has again filed O.A. No. 1117 of 2022, challenging the transfer order dated 14.12.2022 whereby he was transferred to Southern Railway Chennai. However, upon considering his representation, again the transfer order was cancelled and applicant remained at the same place of posting. Thereafter, now through the present O.A., he has been requesting to allow him to quash the transfer order as well as relieving order vide which the applicant has been transferred from North Central Railway Prayagraj to Eastern Railway Kolkata.
In Gujarat Electricity Board Vs. Atmaram Sungomal Poshani, AIR 1989 SC 1433, the Supreme Court has observed as under:-
"Transfer of a Government servant appointed to a particular cadre of transferable posts from one place to the another is an incident of service. No Government servant or employee of public undertaking has legal right for being posted at any particular place. Transfer from one place to other is generally a condition of service and the employee has no choice in the matter. Transfer from one place to other is necessary in public interest and efficiency in the public administration."
In this regard it would be pertinent to refer to a catena of decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the following cases: -
Shilpi Bose Vs. State of Bihar AIR 1991 SC 532, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that a transfer order, even if, is issued to accommodate a public servant to avoid hardship, the same cannot and should not be interfered by the Court merely because transfer orders were passed on the request of the concerned employees. No person has a vested right to remain posted to a particular place, and unless the transfer order is passed in violation of any mandatory rule, the High Court had no jurisdiction to interfere with the transfer orders. Relevant extract is quoted as under:
“if the competent authority issued transfer orders with a view to accommodate a public servant to avoid hardship, the same cannot and should not be interfered by the Court merely because the transfer order were passed on the request of the employees concerned. The respondents have continued to be posted at their respective places for the last several years, they have no vested right to remain posted at one place. Since they hold transferable posts they are liable to be transferred from one place to the other. The transfer orders had been issued by the competent authority, which did not violate any mandatory rule, therefore, the High Court had no jurisdiction to interfere with the transfer orders.”
In the case of Rajendra Rai vs. Union of India 1993 (1) SCC 148 and Union of India vs. N.P. Thomas 1993 Suppl. (1) SCC 704, it was said that the Court should not interfere with the transfer orders unless there is a violation of some statutory rule or where the transfer order was mala fide.
Here, in the present case, the applicant has alleged malafide against the officers of respondents department, however, he has not made party to any of those officers. Then, how the malafide can be proved by the applicant.
The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India & Anr. Vs. G. Ganayutham, (1997) 7 SCC 463, observed as follows:- “We are of the view that even in our country-in cases not involving fundamental freedoms-the role of our courts/tribunals in administrative law is purely secondary and while applying Wednesbury and CCSU principles to test the validity of executive action or of administrative action taken in exercise of statutory powers, the Court and Tribunals in our country can only go into the matter, as a secondary reviewing Court to find out if the executive or the administrator in their primary roles have arrived at a reasonable decision on the material before them in the light of Wednesbury and CCSU test. The choice of the options available is for the authority; the Court/ Tribunal cannot substitute its view as to what is reasonable.”
The applicant has also taken the ground that his transfer/posting is against the guidelines issued by the respondents’ department for posting the spouse at the same place. The relevant portion of the Circular dated 31.08.20215 is quoted herein below: -
“(vii)Normally, minimum tenure on a particular post at a time will be 2 years and maximum tenure will be 5 years. For sensitive posts, maximum tenure will be t years Minimum tenure will not be applicable for Junior Scale/Senior Scale officers of Group A. However, in administrative exigencies, relaxation may be granted by cadre controlling officer.” . . . .
(xvi)Every effort will be made to post the husband and wife at the same station as detailed in DOP&T's Circular No. F.No.28034/9/2009-Estt (A) dated 30th September 2009.”
It has to be understood any transfer policy is an executive instruction ab intio ipso facto and is not a statutory subordinate legislation. Therefore, a transfer policy guideline can, therefore, not acquire the authority of the statutory rules because the rules cannot be amended by executive orders and a transfer policy can be amended and is amended from time to time by the executive authority.
"The spouse employed under the Central Govt. may apply to the competent authority and the competent authority may post the said officer to the station or if there is no post in that station to the State where the other spouse is posted.”
It is evident from perusal of records that the applicant is a member of All India Services (IRSEE) and he held a transferable post and posted at different places in North Central Railway since 30.04.2005 and in pursuance to Order passed by this Tribunal in earlier OAs, he is posted at North Central Railway, Prayagraj.
From perusal of the aforesaid citations and decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court, it appears that court should not normally interfere in the transfer order if that is not otherwise violative of statutory provisions or passed with mala fide intention. Transfer is an exigency of service and it is in the domain of executive to place one person at a particular place for effective administration.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgment in S.C. Saxena Vs. Union of India & Ors., 2006 SCC (L&S) 1890 has settled the law in regard to transfer as follows:
“6.We have perused the record with the help of the learned counsel and heard the learned counsel very patiently. We find that no case for our interference whatsoever has been made out. In the first place, a government servant cannot disobey a transfer order by not reporting at the place of posting and then go to a court to ventilate his grievances. It is his duty to first report for work where he is transferred and make a representation as to what may be his personal problems. This tendency of not reporting at the place of posting and indulging in litigation needs to be curbed.”
As per the above observation, the grounds raised by the applicant have already been discussed by this Tribunal as well as by the respondents twice hence, we do not found fit case to interfere in the orders impugned in the present O.A. Accordingly, O.A. is dismissed. However, this Tribunal has provided a liberty to the applicant to first join at the place of transfer and after joining make a representation to the competent authority amongst the respondents. The competent authority amongst the respondents is directed to consider the request of applicant sympathetically to post him at Railway Board, New Delhi, CRIS R.D.S.O. at New Delhi or at North West Railway, Jaipur. No cost.