Mukesh Yatee vs Union Of India & Ors.

Shri Anil Kumar Singh, counsel for the applicant and Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan, counsel for the respondents are present and heard.

This O.A. has been filed by the applicant challenging the impugned transfer order dated 31.08.2026 as well as order dated 21.09.2026. Counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant was earlier posted at Mumbai and, thereafter, he was transferred from Mumbai to Kanpur in the year 2019. He submitted that as per transfer guideline of ministerial staff, the employee who has completed 10 years in an industrial unit, would be considered for transfer hence, the aforesaid transfer order is premature as the applicant has completed only seven years at Kanpur. He further submitted that aggrieved by impugned transfer order, the applicant has moved one representation dated 08.09.2026 before the respondents’ authority stating various grounds including the spouse ground, children illness as well as dependency of parents on him. The said representation was recommended by the Commander, Chief Inspector of Naval Armament showing the administrative exigencies on account of transfer of applicant being U.D.C. and senior most staff in the ministerial cadre. The said request/recommendation has not been acceded by the respondents’ department and rejected the same vide letter dated 21.09.2026. He further submitted that the rejection order has not been communicated to the applicant till date. Moreover, after getting the information, he has moved another representation dated 23.09.2026 submitting his grievance as well as recommendation of the Commander/Chief Inspector of Naval Armament at Kanpur showing the administrative exigencies for retaining the applicant at Kanpur. The Commander/Chief Inspector of Naval Armament again has written the same facts with regard to retention of applicant at Kanpur.

Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the transfer is an exigency of service and applicant is liable to be transferred to anywhere in India. However, he seeks time to get instruction from the respondents and to apprise this Tribunal about the status of representation as to whether same has been decided by reasoned and speaking order or not, by the next date.

Considering the submission of counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, it is apparent that as per transfer policy of respondents’ department, the applicant has not completed 10 years at Kanpur. Moreover, the competent authority posted at Kanpur has also recommended for retention of applicant and it appears that the applicant is not relieved till date. Therefore, I am in opinion to dispose of this O.A. at admission stage itself with direction to competent authority amongst the respondents/respondent No. 2 to consider the grievance of the applicant, as mentioned in his representation dated 08.09.2026 and 23.09.2026 in the light of recommendation made by the Commander/ Chief Inspector of Naval Armament as well as the other grounds raised by the applicant including spouse ground, children illness and dependency of parent upon applicant, and pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with extant rules and transfer policy within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order and, if feasible, the applicant may be accommodated at Kanpur till completion of his tenure,. Till the representation is decided, if the applicant is not relieved, the applicant will not be relieved. The decision so taken on the representation of applicant shall be intimated to him forthwith. It is made clear that this Tribunal has not gone into the merits of case. No order as to cost.