Jayashree Talwar vs Ministry Of Labour And Employment & Ors.

As per: B. Anand, Member (A)

The applicant herein, by order dated 22.05.2025, has been transferred from the post of DD Headquarters Incharge, which she has been holding, in the same capacity, from the respondents' headquarters in Delhi to Mangalore. The applicant, aggrieved by the same, has filed this OA seeking the following reliefs: “a. Quashing/setting aside impugned Transfer Orders No. DTNBWED/HO/Admin/Tr/2025/ dated 22.5.2025 of the Applicant;

Even before the merits of the case could be fully dwelt into, the applicant was pressing for interim relief, and by a detailed order dated 13.06.2025, after hearing both the parties, the Bench was pleased to grant her interim protection by their order sheet dated 13.06.2025.

Today in the cause list, the matter to be considered and adjudicated was MA 4280/2025 filed by the respondents seeking a vacation of the above interim relief. However, inasmuch as the MA has been listed along with the OA, we have taken up the OA and heard the counsels from both the sides.

The learned counsel for the applicant mounted a vigorous challenge to the impugned order dated 22.05.2025 by drawing the attention of the Bench to the transfer policy guidelines for posting and transfers of officials of the respondents' organization. He states that such transfers and postings can be done by the competent authority, who is the Director of the respondents' organisation viz. Director, DTNBWED after the recommendations of the Transfer Committee.

The said transfer guidelines contemplate the following members to constitute the Transfer Committee:

The learned counsel states that these transfer policy guidelines, which has a provision for a Transfer Committee, has not been constituted, inasmuch as the post of Additional Director is vacant and the post of Deputy Director Headquarters is held by the applicant. After she went on leave due to the ill health of her sister, who subsequently expired, during the interregnum period when she was not occupying that post, in order to overcome this hurdle the respondents have transferred and posted one Aditya Bhattacharya, who is only an Education Officer holding a Level 10 rank post, who has been brought from Faridabad to Delhi on 22.05.2025, on the same date when the applicant was also moved out of Delhi and posted to Mangalore.

The learned counsel for the applicant states that there exists a second ground to challenge the transfer order as an incompetent person such as Aditya Bhattacharya, who is only an Education Officer, Level 10, is brought to the headquarters only for the purpose of facilitating his transfer from Faridabad to Delhi, and such Level 10 officer is co-opted by the respondents into the Transfer Committee to facilitate the transfer of the applicant, who is holding a Level 12 rank post in a substantive manner and also in that capacity acting as Deputy Director Headquarters, which is a Level 13 post.

The third ground taken by the learned counsel for the applicant to challenge the transfer order in question is that the applicant has been posted as a Chief Vigilance Officer by the respondents by the order dated 21.03.2023 issued by the Central Vigilance Commission, wherein it is very clearly stated that she shall be holding the post of part-time CVO for a period of three years from the date of assumption of charge of the post or till further orders, whichever event occurs earlier.

The learned counsel for the applicant states that the impugned transfer order issued by the respondents has been done without obtaining the approval of the Central Vigilance Commission or the Ministry of Labour and Employment, and the subsequent action of the respondents in curtailing her three-year tenure as part-time CVO by their order dated 14.10.2025 is also against the rules governing the appointment of such CVOs.

The learned counsel for the applicant also stated that the action of the respondents in issuing the impugned order dated 22.05.2025 is motivated by a colourable exercise of their authority, (fourth ground of challenge) and in order to buttress this claim the counsel for the applicant was stating before us that they have filed a separate OA for challenging the action of the respondents in abolishing the post of DD Headquarters, even when the present OA was engaging the attention of the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the applicant also stated that the respondents are going ahead to recover certain amount of money from her salary, and that they have also instituted three disciplinary proceedings against her, of which two could possibly result in major penalties and one a minor penalty. She has challenged all these actions by filing other OAs in this Tribunal.

The learned counsel for the applicant also states that the entire transfer orders, including the transfer order of the applicant which is the impugned order, is a fallout of a calculated move involving a few officials working in the respondents' organization, (fifth ground of challenge) as could be seen from the fact that on one single day i.e. 22.05.2025, one Shri Aditya Bhattacharya, working only as an Education Officer, has been brought to New Delhi by the order of the Director General; and this said Aditya Bhattacharya, holding a Level 10 rank post, is now given charge of a Level 13 post of Deputy Director, and he in turn transfers one Shri Karnail Singh, holding the post of DD Education Incharge in the Head Office, to the Regional Directorate in Chandigarh, as per the latter's desire. Similarly, one Shri Ramesh M. Madavi, working as Regional Director, Chennai, is transferred to the post of DD Headquarters left vacant by the applicant herein, by this same Aditya Bhattacharya. She also states that this Ramesh Madavi is also figuring as one of the members of the Transfer Committee in his capacity as a person belonging to the SC/ST category. The learned counsel for the applicant also states that the said Karnail Singh, holding the position of Deputy Director Education Incharge, has issued an office order dated 22.05.2025 wherein he nominates Shri Aditya Bhattacharya, Education Officer / RD Incharge, Faridabad, as a member of the Transfer Committee, and authorizes him to sign as DD Headquarters Incharge, for effecting the transfer of officers, that is, Regional Directors / Education Officers including Selection Grade, but not that of Deputy Directors.

All these facts go to establish that certain officials working in respondent No. 3's organization have conspired with each other and, in a kind of a pre-set game, managed to get posted in their choice posting.

The learned counsel for the applicant also states that the competent authority for such transfers is the Board of the Authority of respondent No. 3's organization and not the Governing Council. He also goes on to state that the President of the Board is the Hon'ble Minister for Labour and Employment, and any violation of the transfer and postings policy can be done only with the approval of the Ministry, which had initially approved the said transfer and posting policy on 21.03.2017.

The learned counsel for the applicant also drew the attention of the Bench to the efforts being made, subsequent to the issue of the impugned order, by the respondents in bringing in place a new transfer and posting policy by their internal Note No. 1 (the same was submitted by the applicant’s counsel across the Bar).

The learned counsel for the applicant also showed the latest transfer and posting policy, which has been approved on 08.04.2025 by the competent authority (the Hon'ble Minister for Labour and Employment), and also the Memorandum of Association and Rules and Regulations governing respondent No. 3's organization, to show that the power to frame, amend or repeal the bye-laws is vested with the Government of India, and that the Governing Body, of which the Chairperson is at the apex, shall have the powers for determining the “terms, tenure of appointments, emoluments, allowances, rules of discipline and other conditions of service of officers of the Board”. However, such exercise of power, both by the Governing Body as well as the Director General, is subject to the powers actually vested with them, with the previous approval of the Ministry.

The learned counsel for the applicant has shared across the Bar the Memorandum of Association and the Ministry's letter dated 08.04.2025 to show that any amendment in the transfer policies can be done only with the approval of the Ministry and cannot be done by the Governing Body at its level.

The learned counsel for the applicant states that in the revised checklist for revival of posts given by the respondents to the Ministry, they have very clearly enumerated the duties and responsibilities of the post of Deputy Director Education, which reads as follows:

Thus, nowhere in the duty chart is he vested with the power to nominate anybody to the Transfer Committee, and such an incompetent person nominating the said Aditya Bhattacharya to the Transfer and Posting Committee, without the approval of the Ministry, renders the constitution of the TPC null and void, and thereafter any decision taken by such TPC is also null and void. In this regard, the applicant is relying upon the judgment in the case of Sameer Dnyandev Wankhede Vs. UOI & Ors., in OA No. 3677/2024, the D.B. of this Honb’le Tribunal vide order dated 20.02.2025 held that actions of respondents are such which do not fall within the policy framework laid down by themselves and held that transfer of the applicant is not in consonance with the new transfer/placement guidelines and transfer order dated 30.05.2022 quashed.

To buttress his claim that the said Aditya Bhattacharya was an accomplice in issuing the transfers of other colleagues, namely one Deputy Director Karnail Singh and one Ramesh M. Madavi, because he himself is going to be a beneficiary of such transfer orders, the learned counsel for the applicant is relying upon the following judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of E.P. Royappa Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (1974) 4 SCC 3 – Their Lordships held that “The government is the best judge to decide how to distribute and utilize the services of its employees. However, this power must be exercised honestly, bonafide and reasonably. It should be exercised in public interest. If the exercise of power is based on extraneous considerations or for achieving an alien purpose or an oblique motive, it would amount to mala fide and colourable exercise of power.

The applicant states that while states that while seeking interim protection against the impugned order dated 22.05.2026, he has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in T.S.R. Subramanian & Ors. vs. Union of India (2013) 15 SCC 732 – Their Lordships observed that employees must be protected against wrongful and arbitrary pressure executed by the administrative superiors and other vested interests. He is now relying upon the upon the judgment to make the interim relief dated 13.06.2025 absolute.

The applicant states that although she has been issue a relieving order dated 30.05.2025, still the Tribunal can interfere in this mater and she relies upon the case of Shobha Ram Vs. State of H.P. and Anr., 2004 (3) ATJ 116, Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh in WP No.304 of 2004 held that “If a person aggrieved by the transfer order approached the court or Tribunal assailing the same on grounds tenable under law and satisfied or convinced the court/Tribunal at an interim/interlocutory stage that the transfer order was indeed passed in violation of law – The mere fact that the person concerned has been relieved from the post cannot be a ground for refusing to stay the operation of the transfer order. [Emphasis supplied]”

The learned counsel for the respondents, however, vehemently opposing the submissions made by the applicant, states that the competent authority, namely the Chairperson of the Governing Council, has only issued the impugned order, and the fact that Aditya Bhattacharya's name or Karnail Singh's name is mentioned in the transfer orders does not mean that they are the competent authority. They have only issued the orders after the approval of the competent authority.

The learned counsel for the respondents states that the initial order transferring the applicant from Hubli, where she was working as a Regional Director, to the post of Deputy Director Headquarters Incharge at New Delhi, issued on 24.12.2021, was also issued with the approval of the Chairperson.

The learned counsel for the respondents further states that the applicant, being the second senior-most person in the establishment of the respondents' organization and holding the post of Deputy Director Headquarters Incharge, was part of the administrative process prevailing in the respondents' organization, as evident from the fact that she has affixed her signature on 11.11.2024 indicating the staff position in the respondents' organization wherein the post of Deputy Director was shown to be vacant. He states that when an option form was given to the employees of the respondents' organization by the letter dated 07.05.2025 asking them to indicate their choice place of posting, it was indeed the applicant who had signed this letter in her capacity as Deputy Director Headquarters. So, having worked in that post and being a party to all the actions of respondent No. 3, she cannot now turn around and state that the impugned order transferring her out of Delhi to Mangalore by a similar process is violative of the transfer and posting guidelines.

He also states that when an opportunity was given to her to exercise her choice of posting, she did not do so, whereas 88 out of the 89 employees working in the respondents' organization had indicated their choice place of posting, and when issued with transfer orders, had dutifully obeyed the same and joined at their place of posting. He is detailing these instances to buttress his claim that there has been no mala fide on the part of the respondents in issuing such transfer orders.

In fact, he states that the transfer orders have been necessitated due to audit objections, which have been detailed in the audit's letter dated 31.12.2024, which reads as follows:

The respondents state that the post of Deputy Director Headquarters had already been abolished in the year 2014, as pointed out by the audit. However, the department has also reiterated the same by formally abolishing the post of Deputy Director Headquarters by their order dated 02.06.2025.

The learned counsel for the respondents states that the applicant was holding the post of CVO only on a part-time basis, and in any case, having been appointed to the said post on 21.03.2023, the three-year period is already over and her tenure as CVO was curtailed only on 14.10.2025, much after the impugned transfer order were issued. He also states that one P.K. Moon, who was also a part-time CVO and the predecessor of the applicant, had also been transferred earlier, and he has gone and joined in the new post.

Regarding the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that by the impugned order dated 22.05.2025 the applicant has been transferred to Mangalore in the same capacity, he states that she was only transferred as a Regional Director and not in the same capacity, on the ground that she is proficient in the local language, and this can be seen from the fact that the respondents have issued a letter dated 30.05.2025 whereby they have very clearly stated that she is posted to Mangalore as Regional Director.

The learned counsel for the respondents states that the applicant cannot now take the stand that a Level 10 officer like Aditya Bhattacharya cannot work as Level 12, inasmuch as the applicant herself, holding the rank of a Level 12 officer as Regional Director, was holding the post of DD Headquarters, which is a Level 13 post and by referring to the transfer policy, that in any case the Chairperson has got the power, by paragraph 19 of the said transfer policy guidelines, to relax any of the above conditions contained in the transfer policy.

The counsel for the respondents also states that the Regional Director post does not exist in the headquarters, and the post of DD Headquarters already being abolished, there is no way that the applicant can work in the headquarters.

The counsel for the respondents further states that the applicant is not holding the post of DD Headquarters substantively, but is only DD Headquarters Incharge, which is a temporary arrangement, and she has not been appointed substantively to the post of DD Headquarters.

He also states that the latest transfer policy referred to by the learned counsel for the applicant is only a draft transfer policy.

The learned counsel for the respondents states that the said Aditya Bhattacharya has been relocated by the orders of respondent No. 3, the competent authority, and that he has not transferred himself and none of the persons named have transferred themselves.

Lastly, he states that the applicant, being the Regional Director, is the head of her new location and will be the head of the Authority there.

We have heard the submissions from both the sides and, with the assistance of the counsels, we have perused the records.

We are conscious of the fact that transfer is only an incidence of service, and normally courts are loathe to interfere in transfer matters, which is the prerogative of the administration, unless and until it is shown that such transfer is violative of any statutory orders / guidelines, or the said transfer is vitiated by a colourable exercise of power or mala fide, or the transfer orders have been issued by an incompetent authority.

We find that prima facie there is a case made out by the applicant, and therefore initially the Bench, by a detailed order dated 13.06.2025, had granted an interim stay of the impugned order. Now, even after hearing the arguments from both the sides, we find that a case has been made out by the applicant that the transfer policy guidelines have been violated by the respondents, inasmuch as the said transfer policy guidelines issued by the Ministry's letter dated 21.03.2017 clearly state that the Transfer Posting Committee (TPC) shall comprise the following for Group ‘A’ and Group ‘B’ officers:

Thus, four officers whose designations are clearly mentioned in the said transfer policy are to be in place to apply their mind and give their recommendations to the Director General, and only after this approval such transfers will have to be effected.

Here we notice that the post of Additional Director is not in existence. As regards the post of Deputy Director Headquarters, although stated to have been abolished in the year 2014 by the report of the audit committee, the formal orders abolishing the post of Deputy Director Headquarters were issued by the respondents only on 02.06.2025 after the issuance of the impugned order. Thus, clearly, the post of Deputy Director Headquarters Incharge was technically available on the date when the impugned order was issued. And therefore, the post carrying the pay scale equivalent to Level 13, held by the applicant who is a Level 12 rank officer, cannot be transferred over by an incompetent Transfer Committee comprising of Education Officer holding the post of Level 10, among others.

We also find that there is force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant, who took us through the Articles of Association of the respondents' organization, which clearly show that it is only the Board, which is chaired by the President, who has the authority to vary the terms and conditions contained in the said transfer policy guidelines.

We are not moved by the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents that the Chairperson of the Governing Council has got the powers for relaxing the said guidelines, inasmuch as such relaxation which is contemplated in paragraph 19 of the transfer policy guidelines, on a wholesome reading, only gives the meaning that the Chairperson, only in exceptional and extraordinary cases (which has not been brought out clearly in this case), after due consideration, may relax any of the above conditions in effecting, modifying or cancelling a transfer. And if any such due consideration has been made by the Chairperson, the same has not been placed before us to arrive at the conclusion that such relaxation has been done by the Chairperson due to certain extraordinary or exceptional situations prevailing there.

The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that an incompetent person was there on the TPC becomes evident from the fact that the said Aditya Bhattacharya, holding a Level 10 post, was nominated to the TPC by one Karnail Singh, who is only a Deputy Director Education, and his duty chart, as enumerated by the learned counsel for the applicant, clearly does not clothe him with such administrative powers.

It is also peculiar to note that all the posting and transfer orders, including the impugned order transferring the applicant, as well as the transfer orders of one Karnail Singh to Chandigarh, and one Aditya Bhattacharya moving in from Faridabad to Delhi, as DD Headquarters and one Ramesh M. Madavi from Chennai to Mumbai in one single day i.e. 22.05.2025 appear to be showing that something is not right, although we are not able to lay our finger exactly on what it is. But it certainly lends credence to the argument made by the counsel for the applicant that certain officials working in the respondents' organization have been obliging each other and trying to get their choice place of posting, and in the bargain have edged out the applicant from the headquarters to Mangalore. However, we refrain from making any specific comments on this, as we can only conjecture what could have been the circumstances. But definitely a preponderance of probability is there, based on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant.

We also refrain from commenting on the contention of the counsel for the applicant that the impugned order has been driven by a colourable exercise of power, as there have been multiple OAs filed by the applicant which are now before this Bench as of now, after issuance of the transfer orders, and therefore we do not wish to comment on that aspect.

But definitely we find that, the foundation of such transfers being the transfer posting guidelines which are approved by the Ministry, any tinkering with the transfer policy guidelines on the ground that sufficient senior level officers are not available in the headquarters can only be done with the approval of the Ministry, which has not been done in the present case.

Also, the fact that the post of Deputy Director Headquarters was abolished on 02.06.2025, much after the impugned order of transfer was issued, does not help the respondents in taking the stand that this is only a post which is not in existence, or that the applicant was holding the post only in an incharge capacity.

The contention of the counsel for the respondents that the applicant, being DD Headquarters earlier, was involved in all the administrative processes in that capacity, and now that she herself is being transferred is turning around and questioning those administrative processes, also does not move us, because after all, only when a person is affected by the actions of the respondents would they come before the Tribunal, and not otherwise.

We have been guided by the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant in paras 20 to 23 and are not extensively quoting there from only in the interest of brevity.

Under the above facts and circumstances, we allow this OA and quash and set aside the impugned transfer order dated 22.05.2025. The interim order dated 13.06.2025 is made absolute. The OA and the MA are accordingly disposed of. No Costs.