Nishant Vinayak Wasnik vs Union Of India & Ors.

Per: Justice Sunil Thomas, Judicial Member -

The sole applicant, aggrieved by the refusal on the part of the 4^th respondent to issue orders relieving him from Trivandrum Division to Nagpur Division of South East Central Railway on inter Railway one way transfer on spouse ground has approached this Tribunal.

The applicant responded to a notification issued by the Southern Railway for appointment to level-1 vacancy against Scouts and Guides quota for the vacancy year 2019-2020. On being selected, the applicant was appointed by Annexure A1 issued by the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Southern Railway in the Medical Department of Trivandrum Division. According to the applicant, his wife is employed as a woman constable in the Maharashtra City Police, Nagpur. Hence, he submitted an application for transfer as housekeeping assistant to an identical post in Nagpur Workshop of the South East Central Railway on spouse grounds. Annexure A2 request submitted by him was forwarded by the Trivandrum Division granting no objection. Annexure A3 is the transfer order issued by the 4^th respondent Senior Divisional Personnel Officer dated 8.7.2026 granting no objection in transferring him to South East Central Railway on spouse ground, on bottom seniority. Annexure A3 dated 8.7.2026, is the approval of the competent authority of Southern Railway of Trivandrum Division through HRMS. Consequently, the applicant was relieved by the Additional Chief Medical Superintendent of Southern Railway by Annexure A4 order dated 10.7.2026. On being relieved, the applicant reported before the Divisional Personnel Officer, Trivandrum for further direction and relieving him from Trivandrum Division to join Nagpur Division of the South East Central Railway. However, the Divisional Personnel Officer, who is the 4^th respondent, refused to issue the relieving order to the applicant stating that he had executed a bond inter alia, undertaking to serve in Trivandrum Division for 10 years and that the applicant could be relieved only after 10 years of service in Trivandrum Division.

According to the applicant he had not executed any such bond and at any case he has no objection in continuing in the Scouts and Guides organization in the new unit of Nagpur Workshop also. However, the 4^th respondent refused to relieve the applicant stating that he had to go back and join the Railway hospital. In the meanwhile, Annexure A6 order was issued by the Personnel Department of the Southern Railway, Trivandrum dated 13.7.2026 directing him to report back to CMS/O/TVC on a ground that he was appointed as HKA under the Scouts and Guides quota and was required to serve the Scouts and Guides organization, Southern Railway, for a minimum period of 10 years. Accordingly, it was directed that he shall not be relieved until further orders. Consequently, Annexure A7 order was issued on behalf of the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer dated 14.7.2026 cancelling the inter Railway request transfer order issued in favour of the applicant due to procedural errors. Challenging this, the applicant has approached this Tribunal seeking reliefs. 4. At the time of admission an interim order was granted by this Tribunal staying the operation of Annexures A6 and A7. The interim direction is continuing. The reliefs sought in the Original Application are as follows:

The respondents appeared and filed a detailed reply statement inter alia, contending that the applicant was selected under the Scouts and Guides quota by the Railway Recruitment Cell, Chennai pursuant to the approval by the General Manager, Southern Railway and was allotted to Trivandrum Division against a vacancy earmarked for the said Division. The approval for recruitment under the said quota was subject to a specific condition that the services will be utilized for Scouts and Guides activities, as and when necessity arises, in addition to his normal duties. A bond from the candidates may be obtained to the effect that they will serve the Scouts and Guides organization for a minimum period of 10 years in addition to the normal official duties. The said communication dated 8.4.2021 was produced as Annexure R1.

It was contended that the recruitment under the Scouts and Guides quota was not a mere concessionary mode of appointment, but was intended to promote and sustain the objectives of the Scouts and Guides organization within the Railways. The candidates recruited under this special quota are expected to continue to contribute to Scouts and Guides activities, in addition to the normal official duties. Hence, the condition incorporated in the appointment order requiring the candidate to serve the Scouts and Guides organization for a minimum period of 10 years has a specific purpose and is an essential condition attached to such recruitment. It was further stated that in paragraph 17 of Annexure A1 offer of appointment, it was specifically stipulated that the applicant was required to execute an agreement in the prescribed form undertaking to serve the Scouts and Guides organization for a minimum period of 10 years. However, due to an inadvertent administrative oversight, the prescribed bond was not obtained from the applicant at the time of his appointment. Such omission does not obliterate or waive the condition of appointment voluntarily accepted by the applicant. The obligation flows from the terms of the offer of appointment itself which the applicant accepted before entering service. Hence, the non-execution of a formal agreement therefore, cannot confer upon the applicant any right contrary to the conditions governing his appointment under the Scouts and Guides quota.

It was stated that along with the offer of appointment the prescribed bond was also enclosed. To substantiate it the respondents relied on Annexure R2 a proforma of the service agreement along with the offer of appointment. It was also stated that identical service bonds were executed by similarly situated Scouts and Guides quota employees. Annexure R3 was such a bond executed by another candidate.

The cancellation orders Annexures A6 and A7 were not issued unilaterally or in isolation. The orders were passed after thorough administrative review and with explicit approval of the competent authority namely the Divisional Railway Manager (respondent No. 2). As the administrative head of the Division, respondent No. 2 is the absolute competent authority empowered to take final decision regarding transfers and cancellations thereof. The provisional relieving order was issued without noticing the applicant’s failure to execute the mandatory 10 years Scouts and Guides bond. Upon detection of this omission, the Railway administration was fully empowered and under legal duty to withhold the final relieving order and to take appropriate corrective action. It was further contended that applicant is not entitled to seek implementation of inter Railway transfer as a matter of right as such transfer was subject to compliance with the applicable conditions of appointment and the relevant Rules and policies governing inter Railway transfer. The office order dated 31.1.2022 issued in connection with applicant’s appointment was produced as Annexure R4. Relying on Annexure R5 dated 7.9.2023 the Integral Coach Factory (ICF), Personnel Branch policy circular, it was contended that employees recruited under special recruitment quotas namely cultural, sports, Scouts and Guides quota are required to complete a minimum period of 10 years of service before becoming eligible for inter Railway request transfer including transfers sought on spouse grounds.

Heard both sides and examined the records.

It is an admitted fact that the applicant was appointed on Scouts and Guides quota in Trivandrum Division of Southern Railway in December, 2021. He submitted an inter Railway transfer request on spouse ground by Annexure A2 dated 1.12.2025. There is also no dispute that NOC was granted by the Trivandrum Division and accordingly, by Annexure A3 dated 8.7.2026, the approval of the competent authority for inter Railway one way transfer was sanctioned. Evidently, Annexure A3 had the approval of DRM, Trivandrum. It was thereafter, the respondents have taken up the stand that the applicant was bound to execute a bond as prescribed in Annexure A1 that he will serve the Scouts and Guides and raised a contention that he cannot be transferred from the Division for 10 years. Consequently, Annexure A3 was withheld. Thereafter, by Annexures A6 and A7, the inter Railway transfer was revoked and it was directed that he shall not be relieved, until further orders.

The inter Railway transfer is resisted on a specific ground. The applicant was appointed against a Scouts and Guides quota and hence, he is bound to execute a bond undertaking to serve Scouts and Guides for 10 years in the Trivandrum Division. Virtually the stand taken by the respondents is that he cannot be transferred for a period of 10 years on any ground, on the basis of the condition in the bond.

In Clause 17 of Annexure A1 dated 20.12.2021, which is the appointment order issued to the applicant there is a specific clause that he should execute a bond for 10 years. Annexure R4 is the office order dated 31.1.2022 issued in connection with the appointment of the applicant. Clause 17 of Annexure A1 which is the relevant clause reads as follows:

In the light of the specific clause in the appointment order, the applicant is bound to execute a bond in terms of the said directions to serve Scouts and Guides organization for a minimum period of 10 years. Though it is an admitted fact that due to an oversight such a bond was not executed, however, the applicant cannot escape from that liability since Annexure A1 obliges the applicant to execute a bond. Though a corresponding duty was vested with the Railways to get it executed due to some reason Railways did not get it executed. The learned counsel for the applicant also fairly conceded that he has no objection in executing a bond even at this stage.

However, the crucial question is different. The contention of the respondents seems to be that he has to serve Scouts and Guides organization in the Trivandrum Division for a minimum period of 10 years. However, Annexure A1 only prescribes that he should execute an agreement to serve Scouts and Guides organization for a minimum period of 10 years without prescribing that it should be in the Trivandrum Division itself. Corresponding provision in Annexure R4 also indicates his obligation is to serve Scouts and Guides organization for a minimum period of 10 years. Both the clauses do not prescribe that, that service should be in the Division or Railways where he is appointed.

Not only that bond was omitted to be incorporated, though the application for inter Divisional transfer was submitted on 1.12.2025, it was sanctioned after a period of 7 months. At no stage the respondents herein took up a contention that the applicant cannot be transferred for 10 years. A condition prescribing that he should serve for Scouts and Guides organization in the same Department/Division/Railway, in turn indicates, that he cannot be transferred for those 10 years.

To contend that the service should be in the same Division/Railway, the only material placed before me at the time of hearing was a clause in the proforma bond produced as Annexure R2. Some other copies of identical bonds executed by other incumbents were also placed. In that there was a clause that the incumbent binds himself/herself to serve the Government in the post and Department mentioned therein. As indicated earlier, no circular/direction issued by the Railways was placed before me to show that the bond should prescribe that the service should be in the concerned Division/Railway. If such a clause is incorporated definitely it can be challenged on the ground that it restricts any transfer even on spouse ground for a period of 10 years. Of course, it may not be applicable in the case of persons who have voluntarily and with open eyes entered into such a bond. However, in the case of the applicant who prima facie by the records available was only obliged to execute a bond to serve Scouts and Guides organization for 10 years alone, cannot now be enforced with a further condition that it should be within the Division/Railway alone.

A vague attempt was made by the learned counsel for the respondents to project Annexure A11. It is a circular issued by the Integral Coach Factory, Chennai dated 7.9.2023 prescribing that

Having considered the entire facts, we feel that at this length of time especially when the applicant has not entered into a bond and bound himself to remain non-transferrable for 10 years in the same Division, such a condition cannot be incorporated and imposed on him. However, to be fair to the Railways, the applicant should be called upon to execute a bond binding himself to serve Scouts and Guides organization for a period of 10 years from the date of his appointment.

Accordingly, the Original Application is allowed. It is declared that the applicant is entitled to be relieved pursuant to Annexure A3 in supersession of Annexures A6 and A7. There will be a direction to the applicant to execute a bond in the prescribed format undertaking to bind himself for a period of 10 years from the date of his appointment to serve Scouts and Guides organization without any restriction regarding Division/Railway. It is made clear that the applicant will be accordingly, bound to serve Scouts and Guides organization in accordance with clause 17 of Annexure A1. On execution of a bond, he shall be relieved and fresh orders in supersession of Annexures A6 and A7 shall be issued within 3 days from the date of execution of the bond.

The Original Application is allowed as above. No order as to costs.