AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Per: Hon’ble Shri Santosh Mehra ……Member(A)
Through this OA, the applicant has sought the following reliefs:
“(i)To quash the Office Order No. MUTUAL-TRANSFER-MT00021875-NARAYANASWAMY G Dated 28.04.2026 issued by the respondent No.2, Annexure-A7 and cancel the proposal of mutual transfer of the applicant and the respondent No.4 as per the earlier proposal in her light of changed circumstances and
(ii)Grant such other relief deemed fit, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case.”
The facts in a nutshell are as follows:
The applicant has been working as Technician Grade-1 (AC) in the Electrical Department of South Western Railway, Mysuru since 24.01.2013. The respondent No. 4 has been working as Assistant Depot (Helper) in the Stores Department at Yelahanka, Bengaluru since 28.06.2023. The applicant and the respondent No.4 submitted representations for mutual transfer to Railway Authorities on 01.11.2023 and 04.11.2023 respectively. Learning that the nature of duties of both of them is very different, the applicant submitted a request for cancellation of transfer on 14.03.2024 and likewise Respondent No.4 submitted the representation on 27.09.2024. After a lapse of more than two years, on coming to know that the Respondent No. 3 contemplated their mutual transfer, the applicant again submitted a representation on 31.10.2025 to cancel his earlier request for transfer on mutual basis. As his request for cancellation was not accepted and he was transferred to Railway Wheel Factory, Bengaluru, in place of Respondent No.4, he has approached this Tribunal for relief.
2. Applicant:
The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been working in Electrical Department of South Western Railway, Mysuru, since 24.01.2013 and the Respondent No.4 has been working as Assistant Depot (Helper) in the Stores Department at Yelahanka, Bengaluru since 28.06.2023. They submitted their representations on 01.11.2023 and 04.11.2023 for mutual transfer, respectively.
The learned counsel for the applicant further submits that on subsequently coming to know that that technical qualification and responsibilities of the applicant and Respondent No.4 are different, the former submitted a representation on 14.03.2024 for cancellation of his earlier request for mutual transfer. Likewise, Respondent No.4 also submitted a letter of request on 27.09.2024 that he had no objection to cancellation of his earlier request for mutual transfer.
The learned counsel for the applicant avers that as the request for mutual transfer was not acted upon by the concerned authority for a long time, the applicant shifted his family to Mysuru in March, 2025 and admitted his children to school there. Later on coming to know that that Respondent No.3 was considering his request for mutual transfer after a lapse of over two years, the applicant again submitted a representation on 31.10.2025, reiterating his request for cancellation of the proposal for mutual transfer, stating that he had to take care of his old mother and transfer to Bangalore would cause major disruption. The applicant submitted another representation on 17.04.2026.
The learned counsel for the applicant avers that despite the repeated representations for cancellation of his earlier request for mutual transfer and a similar request by Respondent No. 4, the Respondent No.3 issued an order on 31.03.2026 transferring the Respondent No. 4 in his place and Respondent No.2 issued another order dated 28.04.2026 transferring the applicant to Railway Wheel Factory, Bengaluru as per the original proposal.
Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that though the applicant has given another representation to Respondent No.1 on 29.04.2026 requesting for cancellation of his Transfer Order, the same was not considered and hence, he has approached this Tribunal for relief.
3. Grounds for Relief:
The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted several grounds to get the relief, which are summarized below:
a. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that this mutual transfer is without application of mind. The applicant is a Technician working in Electrical section, while Respondent No.4 is a Helper in Stores Department. Not only the applicant is holding a higher post, the nature of his job and responsibilities are totally different from that of Respondent No.4 and hence, they are not interchangeable in terms of postings.
b. Though the applicant has given his representation for mutual transfer on 01.11.2023, he has withdrawn the same on 14.03.2024 and submitted repeated representations for the same, which were not heeded to.
c. The action of the Railway Authorities on their request for mutual transfer after a lapse of more than two years is arbitrary in view of the changed circumstances and hence deserves to be cancelled.
4. Respondents:
The learned counsel for Respondents No. 1 and 2 have filed their reply statement, in which he has stated as follows:
a. The application is barred by delay and laches. The mutual transfer application was submitted in November 2023. The first cancellation request was made in March 2024. Despite this, the Applicant chose not to approach the Tribunal for over two years and filed the present OA only on 04.05.2026, i.e. after the Impugned transfer order was issued and after Respondent No. 4 had already reported for duty at the new post in this Unit. Such belated challenge-is not maintainable. The Applicant has not exhausted alternative remedies. There is misjoinder of necessary parties. Respondent No. 4 is a necessary party who has already altered his position based on the mutual transfer.
b. The counsel avers that the Applicant has no vested right to cancellation. It is well-settled that an employee has no vested right to cancel a mutual transfer once the administration has acted upon it. The applicant submitted his request for withdrawal of Mutual Application on 14.03.2024 and is filing the present OA in the year 2026 after a lapse of 730 days. Thus, the application filed by the applicant is dehorn limitation and does not merit any consideration by this Hon'ble Tribunal and the Application has to be dismissed without condoning the delay and latches in the interest of justice and equity. He reminds the Bench that S.21 of Chapter IV of the Administrative Tribunals Act states that: A Tribunal shall not admit an application in a case where a final order has been made in connection with the grievances unless the application is made within one year from the date on which such final order.
c. In this regard, the Counsel further points out that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically ruled that stale claim cannot be gone into by courts. He places reliance on the judgment of this Tribunal in its order dated 12.12.2006 in OA No.92 of 2006 Kaushal Kishore Vs Union of India & Ors and also the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Arun Agarwal Vs Nagreeka Exports reported in (2002) 10 SCC 101, and Ramesh Kumar Vs UOI & Ors 2003 (u) SCT 69. The counsel submits that as per these judgments, the power of Courts to condone delay is very limited and there must exist strong grounds for a Court to condone the delay.
d. The counsel avers that the Applicant's claim of shifting his family to Mysuru during the pendency of the transfer process is unsubstantiated by any documentary evidence. He argues that on one hand, the Applicant, being a Person with Benchmark Disability (PwBD), initially sought the mutual transfer citing his physical disability and aged mother as compelling reasons and is now using the very same grounds to oppose the transfer, after the administration has acted upon his request. This is a clear case of approbation and reprobation.
e. The counsel argues that the Applicant was fully aware at the time of submitting application for mutual transfer with Respondent No. 4 that the latter was working as "Assistant Depot (Helper)" in Level 1. He knew that Respondent No. 4 was in a lower level post, and despite the same he consented to this mutual transfer by explicitly agreeing to a reversion to the post of Assistant Workshop (Level 1) on bottom seniority. In this regard, the counsel invites my attention to Annexure R1 dated 23.01.2024, in which it is clearly recorded as follows: "Outgoing employee Sri Narayana Swamy G is Tech-I, AC shop has sought for mutual transfer to RWF with Sri Devannanayaka Asst Depot/Stores on reversion as Asst WS on bottom seniority in the recruitment grade."
f. Regarding the Applicant shifting his family to Mysuru in March 2025 he states that he cannot create a new set of circumstances and then use them as grounds to undo a legally processed mutual transfer. This also amounts to approbation and reprobation.
g. Referring to the laid down Rules, the counsel states that Para 4 (iv) of RBE No. 08/2019 (reiteration of RBE no. 53/2006) has clearly specified that once the process of mutual transfer is initiated there can be no backtracking by the employees. Furthermore, the module of mutual transfer in HRMS is designed for handling mutual transfer in such a way that it doesn't allow withdrawal of Mutual transfer request. The whole process is like lighting of the match stick and once the matchstick is lighted, the process is irreversible. Hence, the applicant cannot take shelter under changed circumstances.
The learned counsel for Respondent No. 3 has also filed his reply statement, in which he has essentially reiterated the same points which are already mentioned in the reply of the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Additionally, he has mentioned as follows:
a. The petitioner has not exhausted the available remedies and hence has no locus standi to approach this Honourable Tribunal directly. The mutual transfer of the applicant was carried out duly following the laid down rules.
b. The petitioner has backtracked from such Mutual Transfer as an afterthought as joining in the Rail Wheel Factory on bottom most seniority in Level-1 from his present status in Level-4, would entail lowering of his post and status.
c. Justifying the delay, he argues that the Mutual Transfer applications required approval from different sections of the respondent Railways and the delay occurred due to the time consumed for the verification of the service records of the petitioner as well as the respondent No. 4.
The learned counsel for Respondent No. 4 has also filed his reply, in which he stated as follows:
a. The applicant had initially approached the Respondent No. 4 for applying jointly for mutual transfer, to which the latter has agreed. Accordingly, both of them applied for mutual transfer in November 2023. He further states that though the Respondent No.4 had no intention to withdraw consent for mutual transfer, he was getting frustrated due to the inordinate delay in the acceptance of their mutual request.
b. Finally when almost two years have passed, respondent No. 4 submitted a letter to the Railway Authorities requesting them for a clear decision in the matter. He stated in his letter (Annexure R3) that despite his multiple efforts, neither their request for mutual transfer has been accepted nor rejected, due to which he was unable to apply for another mutual transfer. He reiterated his request for mutual transfer once again on 30.04.2026 (Annexure R4).
c. The counsel further points out that as a consequence of the persistent efforts of the Respondent No.4, mutual transfer order was issued on 28.04.2026 and he was relieved on 29.04.2026. He reported to Personnel Branch on 30.04.2026 (Annexure R7). The counsel for Respondent No. 4 further points out that the applicant, instead of abiding by the order of mutual transfer and reporting to Stores Department, Yelahanka, Bengaluru, has proceeded on medical leave and has avoided being relieved to avoid this mutual transfer. He concludes by stating that the mutual transfer has been done as per the request of the applicant and Respondent no.4 and for valid administrative reasons and it is in conformity with the laid down procedures. Since, he has already reported for duty and has admitted his daughter to the Kendriya Vidyalaya nearby, he should be continued at his new place of posting.
5. Conclusion:
Heard the submissions of the rival counsels and also went through all the records and documents submitted by them, including the judgements of the higher courts and coordinate benches of CAT. The submissions of the counsels of the applicant and respondents can be summarised as follows:
Applicant: The mutual transfer cannot be carried out as the technical qualifications, job profile, tasks and responsibilities of the applicant and respondent are very different and hence, they are not interchangeable.
The applicant has withdrawn his representation for mutual transfer on 14.03.2024, which is around four months after the original representation. He has subsequently sent repeated reminders in this regard.
The order for mutual transfers were issued on 28.04.2026, which is almost after 2 ½ years of the original request for mutual transfer.
During this long interregnum, circumstances have drastically changed. The applicant has already shifted his family to Mysore and admitted his child in the school.
RESPONDENTS 1 to 3:
The OA is barred by the Rule of Limitation, as he has approached the Tribunal, after a lapse of 730 days.
The applicant has not exhausted all the remedies available to him.
As per the laid down rules, one cannot retract his request for mutual transfer and the same is not permissible.
There are several judgements which clearly state that the courts can interfere in matters of transfer in very limited situations such as mala fide, incompetent authority etc., only.
The applicant submitted representation for withdrawal of the request for mutual transfer as an afterthought on realising that he would be holding a lower level Post.
Analysis:
It is not disputed that both the applicant and the fourth respondent had applied for mutual transfer in November 2023, while the order of mutual transfer has come after around 2 ½ years on 28th Feb 2026.
It is also not disputed that the applicant was working as technician in the Electrical Department in Mysuru, while Respondent No. 4 was working as Assistant Depot (Helper) in the Stores Department in Bengaluru.
It is also not disputed that during the interregnum of 2 ½ years between the submission of applications for mutual transfer by the applicant and Respondent No.4, several representations were given and efforts were made by both of them to get closure to the matter of mutual transfer.
It would be beneficial to examine the arguments of the rival counsels in the light of relevant rules/procedures and the judicial orders:
I. Period of Limitation: While it is correct that the applicant submitted a representation regarding withdrawal of request for mutual transfer on 14.03.2024, followed by certain reminders, the ‘Cause of Action’ has essentially arisen when Orders of mutual transfer were issued on 28.04.2026. As the OA has been filed on 04.05.2026, it is well within the period of limitation and hence, the averment of the learned counsel for the respondents is not tenable.
II. Exhaustion of Remedies: It is clearly seen from the documents furnished that both the applicant and Respondent No. 4 had been making sincere efforts in terms of sending letters and reminders to various authorities, to get proper closure to the issue of mutual transfer, either through acceptance or rejection. At this juncture, it is pertinent to mention that CAT does have, in exceptional cases, the power to entertain an Original Application under Section 19 of the 1985 Act, even if the applicant before it has not exhausted the remedies available to him under the Service Rules, applicable to him for redressal of his grievances. If any authority on this point is required, one may profitably refer to the decision in D B Gohil Vs. Union of India.
III. Rules regarding Mutual transfer: It is repeatedly asserted by the learned counsels for the respondents that once an application for mutual transfer is given, it cannot be withdrawn. It is further stated that the mutual transfer has been carried out strictly as per the laid down rules.
IV. In this regard, it would be beneficial to have a look at the relevant rules, which are cited as below:
In Annexure R2, it is mentioned as follows:
“No.E(NG)I-2006/TR/6. New Delhi, dated 21-04-2006. The General Manager (P) All Indian Railways and PUs (As per standard list)
Sub: Inter-Railway and Intra-Railway transfers on mutual exchange.
As the Railways are aware in terms of extant procedure in vogue vide para 310 of Indian Railway Establishment Manual, Vol.I, 1989, transfers on the basis of mutual exchange are allowed with now loss or minimum loss of seniority. Instances have come to notice where employees make request for such mutual exchange transfer and later on backout when orders are issued and even after one of the two employees gets relieved to join the new place.
3.Board have reviewed the matter and decided that as mutual transfers are ordered with the consent of both the parties, it should be made clear right at the transfer that no request for time of forwarding applications for mutual backtracking from the mutual exchange arrangement will be entertained under any circumstances. Strict adherence to this procedure may please be ensured.”
In Annexure R3, it is mentioned as follows:
“GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS (RAILWAY BOARD) NAFING)1-2018/TR/8 New Delhi, dated 11.01.2019 The General Managers P. All Zonal Railways & Production Units (As per standard list).
Sub: Comprehensive policy on Mutual Transfer of no gazetted staff on the Zonal Railways.
4(iv) No backtracking once Mutual Exchange agreed:- Since mutual transfers are ordered with the consent of both the parties, it should be made clear right at the time of forwarding applications for mutual transfer that no request for backtracking from Mutual exchange arrangement will be entertained under any circumstances {Board's letter No. E(NG)I-2006/TR/6 dated 21.04.2006 (R.B.E. No. 53/2006) refers}.
10. Model Timelines to deal with Mutual Transfer cases:-
| S.N. | Activity |
|---|---|
| (i) | Forwarding of applications by Supervisors to the Personnel Department of the Division: It should be verified at the stage that the prescribed application form is complete in all respects duly signed by both employees and the information given therein is correct. In case of Workshop staff, this will be done at the Workshop itself. 10 days |
| (ii) | Forwarding by Divisional Personnel Department :- (a) Divisional controlled posts: Divisional Personnel Department will forward the request application with necessary documents directly to the Division concerned to which transfer is sought. The name and designation of the officer signing the letter should invariably be mentioned in the forwarding letter. In respect of Workshop staff, this will be done by Chief Workshop Manager (CWM) or by lower authority to whom the powers may be re-delegated. (b) HQ controlled posts: Personnel Department will forward the application with all the necessary documents to Zonal HQ (CPO office). 15 days |
| (iii) | Forwarding by HQ Personnel deptt (For HQ controlled posts):- On receipt of the application duly forwarded from Division/Workshop. the HQ Personnel Deptt office will forward it to the Zonal Rly/PU concerned. 15 days |
| (iv) | Conveying of acceptance: The counter-part HQ/Division to issue their acceptance to forwarding HQ/Division (as the case may be). 10 days |
| (v) | Issue of Transfer Order: On receipt of consent from the receiving HQ/Division, the transfer orders should be issued. 10 days |
A bare perusal of the above Comprehensive policy indicates that:
a. Application given for Mutual Transfer cannot be withdrawn.
b. The approximate timeline for carrying out Mutual Transfer is two months.
If the above two policy guidelines are read in conjunction, it can be inferred that the requests for mutual transfers cannot be withdrawn once given and the same should be worked upon by the respondents within a period of two months. However, by no stretch of imagination, it can be construed that the period given for acting on requests for mutual transfer can be extended interminably by the respondents. This would be not just travesty of justice and fairness but downright farce.
As seen above, in contrast to the self-imposed timeline of Two months by the respondents, the orders for mutual transfer in this case have been issued after a lapse of around 2 ½ years.
At this stage, it is also pertinent to go through the relevant extracts of certain judgements on this very issue. They are as follows:
In OA No. 95/2018 in CAT Patna Bench, Patna dated 22.01.2019, it was held as follows:
“...........Since there was inordinate delay in finalising the case of mutual transfer, applicant no. 1 submitted a representation for cancellation of his request on 30.04.2013 while applicant no. 2, for the same reason, submitted his request for cancellation through proper channel on 25.09.2017. The applicants have requested for quashing this order since it has been issued after they had withdrawn their request for mutual transfer and has been done more than 6 years after their request for mutual than transfer.
2.The applicants have referred to the circulars of Railway Board where instructions are given to Railway authorities to dispose of request for mutual transfer expeditiously and pass orders within a period of two months. The applicants have also quoted this Tribunal's decision dated 30.09.2013 in OA 438/2013 where, under similar situation, a mutual transfer order was not found to be legally tenable.
3.The respondents have denied the claim made by the applicants. They have quoted Railway Board Circulars RBE 53/2006 dated 21.04.2006 and RBE No. 200/09 dated 12.11.2009, according to which persons who make requests for mutual transfer are forbidden from withdrawing it. Regarding the circular indicating time bound disposal of request of mutual transfer, the respondents have pointed out that the circular issued under RBE No. 131/2017, which gives such timelines, cannot be made applicable to mutual transfers accepted in the year 2013 and 2015.
“5.We have gone through the pleadings and heard the counsels for both the parties. Most of the facts involved in this matter are not questioned by either party. It is accepted that mutual transfer has taken place years after the request for such mutual transfer was made. It is also not in question that during this period the applicants did get two promotions.”..... “The respondents have also not denied the applicant’s allegation that no decision on their request for cancellation was conveyed to them. The only reason the respondents are justifying their action is their circulars RBE 53/2006 and RBE 200/2009. The respondents have also not denied issuance of new directions for time bound disposal of mutual transfer requests though they claim that this was not done in supersession of their above mentioned earlier circulars.”
6.It stands to reason that after inordinate delay in accepting a person's request, and accepting it after that request has been withdrawn, is illogical. The circulars of 2006 and 2009 are obviously with an intention of preventing unnecessary and frequent flip flops by the employees. In this situation, the employer is also expected to be equally reasonable and expeditious in responding to such requests. It could not have been the intention of the above quoted circulars to eternally bind the employees to their requests. In the light of the fact that the Railway Board Circular dated 29.02.2017 (Annexure A/7) provides only two months (for issue of transfer order from the date of forwarding of the application), a delay of six years is certainly very unreasonable. Keeping mum on applicants' request for cancellation, which was done almost two years after the original request, also shows that the respondents have acted unreasonably. The action of the respondents to order relief of the applicants on 27.12.2017, by the impugned order, under the pretext of a mutual transfer request that was made in the year 2011 is, therefore, hereby quashed with respect to the applicants.”
In the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 17826 of 2016 in the case of Union of India and Ors. vs. Shri Sudarshan Kumar, it is held as follows:
“............An application for mutual transfer was filed before the competent authority on 05.04.2013. The final order, accepting the request for mutual transfer, was passed on 04.02.2016, after almost three years. In the meantime, the person making request for mutual transfer got a promotion, and, therefore, in the changed circumstances, wrote a letter withdrawing his consent, but, then, the authorities quoted a Railway Board's Circular that once a ‘consent’ always a ‘consent’ has been used for rejecting such prayer against the transfer. The authorities had to understand the Circular of the Railway Board in the context in which it has been issued, as the facts have undergone a change during the long pendency of the request for mutual transfer, then, the changed circumstances would be required to be considered and revisited. There should not be a rigidity of such kind on that level in the decision making especially at the level of superior authorities. It was not the fault of the private respondent that it took three years for the authorities to approve the mutual transfer case and it was also not the fault of the private respondent that the Railway has granted him promotion which changed his status, and, therefore, he made a request for withdrawal and reconsideration. In these backgrounds, the observation of the Tribunal that prima facie the decision seems to be tainted with mala fide, coupled with unreasonableness may sound too harsh, but, then, there is no other way of describing the manner in which the Railways have gone about taking a decision and trying to force it upon the private respondent. No interference is required to be made with the impugned order dated 8th April, 2016 passed in O.A. No. 285/2016 by the Tribunal. The writ application is dismissed being devoid of merit.””
In the judgment of CAT Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in On No. 451/2022 in the case of Sonvir Singh vs. West Central Railway dated 28.02.2024, it was held as follows:
10......... As per schedule of time prescribed vide RBE letter dated 11.1.2019 (Annexure A/4), the process of mutual transfer is required to be completed within 60 days. But in the present case, the respondents sat over it for almost 02 years and, in the meanwhile, family circumstances of the applicant changed. After almost two years, the respondents vide letter dated 31.08.2022 (Annexure A/2) transferred the applicant acting upon his request of mutual transfer made on 20.08.2020. Apart from the ordinate delay in accepting his request for mutual transfer, the other ground taken by the applicant is that his father is paralytic and suffering from respiratory problem, as such, now he is not in a position to proceed with mutual transfer, which he had requested way back in 2020. The applicant has also placed reliance on judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Patna in the case of Union of India & Ors. vs. Shri Sudarshan Kumar (Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 17826 of 2016, wherein vide its order dated 01.08.2017, the Hon'ble High Court has held as under: "xxx The authorities had to understand the Circular of the Railway Board in the context in which it has been issued, as the facts have undergone a change OA No. 451/2022 with MA No. 332/2023 during the long pendency of the request for mutual transfer, then, the changed circumstances would be required to be considered and revisited. There should not be a rigidity of such kind on that level in the decision making especially at the level of superior authorities. It was not the fault of the private respondent that it took three years for the authorities to approve the mutual transfer case and it was also not the fault of the private respondent that the Railway has granted him promotion which changed his status, and, therefore, he made a request for withdrawal and reconsideration."”
It has been correctly pointed out in the above judgements that carrying out mutual transfer, after a long gap borders on irrationality and lack of objectivity. The fact and circumstances of this case are fully covered by the above cited judgements.
The respondents have themselves fixed a timeline of two months for carrying out mutual transfer. Even if there is some delay, beyond the stipulated timeline, effecting transfer after a long hiatus of 2 ½ years, particularly when the request for mutual transfer has been withdrawn , indicates lack of sensitivity and callous disregard by the respondent for their own rules.
It is further seen that the argument of the counsel for applicant that the mutual transfer was not possible as the technical qualification, role and responsibilities of the applicant and fourth respondent were very different, has not been addressed by the counsel for respondents Nos. 1 to 3. The counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 has tried to take shelter by making a passing reference to the provisions of RBE No. 1/2025 but the same has not been explained at all. It is also seen that in para 5 (iii), while delineating the chronology of action taken on the request for mutual transfer, the counsel for respondent No.3 has stated as follows:
“20.02.2024: Qualification issued raised – Chief Office Superintendent noted deficiency.”
From the above, it is clear that the issue of qualifications and experience of the applicant and fourth respondent was raised but then conveniently glossed over by the respondents and no explanation has been forthcoming for the same.
This issue needs to be examined on the touchstone of Doctrine of Legitimate Expectations also. Ordinarily speaking, once a Government/PSU employee submits a petition or representation for transfer on Mutual transfer, he expects that his petition will be considered and would be accepted or rejected within a reasonable period of time. While it is difficult to exactly mention or specify with precision, what would be the legitimate expectation of an employee in terms of ‘reasonable amount of time’ for consideration of a request petition for transfer, it cannot be denied that the issue of orders after 2 ½ years gap, is definitely far beyond what can be expected to be a reasonable amount of time.
In this regard, it will be beneficial to refer to the relevant extracts of a few judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India:
In the case of Navjyoti Coo-Group Housing Society vs. Union of India and Ors dated 17.09.1992, AIR 1992 SC 1563, it is stated as follows:
15......... “The existence of 'legitimate expectation' may have a number of different consequences and one of such consequences is that the authority ought not to act to defeat the 'legitimate expectation' without some overriding reason of public policy to justify its doing so. In a case of 'legitimate expectation' if the authority proposes to defeat a person's 'legitimate expectation' it should afford him an opportunity to make representations in the matter.......”
Likewise in the case of Ms. X vs. Registrar General, High Court of Madhya Pradesh and Another dated 10.02.2022, in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1137 of 2018, Hon’ble Supreme Court has stated as follows:
“40.It could thus be seen that this Court has held that mere reasonable or legitimate expectation of a citizen may not by itself be a distinct enforceable right. It is further held that the failure to consider and give due weight to it may render the decision arbitrary. It has been held that the requirement of due consideration of a legitimate expectation forms part of the principle of non-arbitrariness, which is a necessary concomitant of the rule of law. Every legitimate expectation is a relevant factor requiring due consideration in a fair decision-making process. ......... “It has been held that the principle of fairness has an important place in the law of judicial review and that unfairness in the purported exercise of power can be such that it is abuse or excess of power. The court should interfere where discretionary power is not exercised reasonably and in good faith.”
Likewise, in the Judgement of Supreme Court of India in SLP (Civil) No. 30762 of 2024 dated 30.01.2026 between Bhola Nath vs. The State of Jharkhand, it is held as follows:
"13......... “ the doctrine of legitimate expectation as enunciated by this Court in Army Welfare Education Society v. Sunil Kumar Sharma, [(2024) 16 SCC 598] wherein it was held as follows: -
“63.A reading of the aforesaid decisions brings forth the following features regarding the doctrine of legitimate expectation: 63.1. First, legitimate expectation must be based on a right as opposed to a mere hope, wish or anticipation; 63.2. Secondly, legitimate expectation must arise either from an express or implied promise; or a consistent past practice or custom followed by an authority in its dealings;
63.5.Fifthly, legitimate expectation operates in the realm of public law, that is, a plea of legitimate action can be taken only when a public authority breaches a promise or deviates from a consistent past practice, without any reasonable basis.”
Similarly, in the Judgement of Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 4514 of 2025 dated 21.05.2026 between Sukhendu Bhattacharjee vs. The State of Assam, it is held as follows:
“69.A three-judge bench of this Court in National Buildings Construction Corporation v. S. Raghunathan [(1998) 7 SCC 66] explained the doctrine of legitimate expectation in the following terms:-"The doctrine of "legitimate expectation" has its genesis in the field of administrative law. The Government and its departments, in administering the affairs of the country, are expected to honour their statements of policy or intention and treat the citizens with full personal consideration without any iota of abuse of discretion. The policy statements cannot be disregarded unfairly or applied selectively. Unfairness in the form of unreasonableness is akin to violation of natural justice. It was in this context that the doctrine of "legitimate expectation" was evolved which has today become a source of substantive as well as procedural rights.”
Viewing the case of the applicant in the doctrinal background of the above judgements, it can be safely concluded that the applicant had a legitimate expectation that his request for mutual transfer would be considered in a reasonable period of time, and it would not be kept hanging in the fire for a long time. Keeping the issue of mutual transfer, beyond the POLICY MANDATED TIMELINE OF TWO MONTHS, right up to almost 2 1/2 years is a clear breach of promise; and it can be safely inferred to be a deviation from laid down practice or custom. It is understandable that the policy guideline of two months is merely a ‘guideline’ and cannot be considered to be strictly enforceable. Even then, the legitimate expectation of the applicant for a decision on his request for mutual transfer can be best expanded to a few months, say upto six months or so. Delay in processing the application for mutual transfer, by say, upto six months is perhaps understandable and can be justified, but stretching the period to almost 2 ½ years, amounts to arbitrariness, in the light of the above cited judgements on the doctrine of legitimate expectation.
Hence, the OA has strong legs to stand upon.
However, it is further seen that respondent No. 4 has been relieved on 29.04.2026 and he has also reported in the Personnel Branch of the Mysore Workshop. The respondent No.4 has stated that he has settled down in his new place of posting, while awaiting proper assignment and utilisation of his skills, in terms of allotment of duties. Since he is in compliance of the Order of Mutual Transfer, he cannot be faulted, even though the Order is vitiated in terms of inordinate delay.
In view of above, the OA is partially allowed. It is here by ordered:
Office Order No. MUTUAL-TRANSFER-MT00021875-NARAYANASWAMY G dated 28.04.2026 is set aside to the extent of the transfer of the applicant only.
The respondents are further directed to accommodate Respondent No. 4 in an assignment at Mysore, keeping in mind his qualifications, expertise and experience.
Respondents are directed to implement the above orders within six weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgement.
All MAs, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.
No costs.