Rajesh Kumar vs The Union Of India & Ors.

^2.1 The applicant was initially appointed against the post of Assistant Loco Pilot on 19.02.2009. He was promoted to the post of Loco Pilot (Goods) in 2016. In August 2018, the applicant was medically de-categorized due to serious cardiac problem and on recommendation of Medical Board, he was absorbed against alternative post of Office Superintendent (Mechanical/TS) in same Grade Pay Rs. 4200/- and was posted at Danapur.

^2.2 While posted as Office Superintendent (Mechanical/TS), the applicant and 08 others have been promoted against the post of Chief Office Superintendent (Mechanical/TS) in same Grade Pay Rs. 4600/-, Level-7 vide order dated 18/20.12.2024 (Annexure A-2) in which the name of applicant is at serial no. 3.

^2.3 It is very relevant to submit here that the respondent no. 4 has issued one seniority list on 03.01.2026 (Annexure A-3) to the post of Chief Office Superintendent (Mechanical/TS) in same Grade Pay Rs. 4600/-, Level-7 in which the name of applicant has been placed at serial no. 8.

^2.4 On 08.03.2026, his position became critical due to cardiac problem, hence he was referred at Medanta Hospital. The applicant has annexed recent medical prescriptions and test reports conducted in between 11.03.2026 to 13.03.2026. This is being annexed as Annexure A-4.

^2.5 The father of the applicant is aged about 95 years old and is suffering from Brain haemorrhage and applicant is only male member to look after his old ailing father. Medical prescription of his father is being annexed as Annexure A-5. Also, the applicant has two minor kids whose school certificates are being annexed as Annexure A-6).

^2.6 The applicant was recently shocked to receive impugned order dated 18.03.2026 (Annexure A-1) issued by the respondent no. 4 whereby applicant has been ordered to be transferred from Danapur to Rajgir without any cogent/disclosed reason.

^2.7 It is also relevant to submit that on 31.12.2025, the ministerial posts of Power Section lying under DME (TS) has been abolished and shifted under Sr. DME (Co-ordination) vide order No. 3529 dated 31.12.2025 whereby a total of 09 posts of Chief Office Superintendent (COS) has been created at different stations such as 02 posts at Mechanical Power, Danapur, 01 each post at Danapur depot, Patna Loco, RJP Depot, Arah Depot, Rajgir Depot and Kiul Depot wherein 03 posts (01 at Danapur Depot, 01 at Patna Depot, 01 at Patna Loco) are still vacant but applicant has been transferred at such a far off place where there is no Railway Hospital of Cardiac treatment and further the persons with longest stay, have been retained.

^2.8 He further submitted that the impugned order is contrary to para-4.2(i) of the policy decision of Railway Board circulated on 17.08.2023 (Annexure A-7) which clearly speaks that in case there is any curtailment in the cadre strength, junior most has to be transferred.

^2.9 The applicant during his sick period has sent one representation on 23.03.2026 (Annexure A-8) to the respondent no. 3 stating his problems and also highlighted the wrongs in the impugned transfer order. Further, he has clearly represented about his medical problem and lack of medical facility at Rajgir but no heed was paid to it. Thereafter, applicant has filed one OA No. 198 of 2026 before this Tribunal which was disposed of on 27.03.2026 (Annexure A-9) with direction to the competent authority to consider and decide the representation dated 23.03.2026 within 45 days.

^2.10 Vide order dated 17.04.2026, the respondent no. 5, who is not competent, has rejected the said representation dated 23.03.2026 and 30.03.2026 of applicant which is non-speaking, cryptic and also in violation of order of this Tribunal. Hence, the present Original Application.

^3.1 The applicant was earlier medically de-categorised and was accommodated against an alternative ministerial post in accordance with the applicable Railway provisions. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Chief Office Superintendent (Mechanical/TS), Level-7 under the applicable promotion process. In view of administrative requirements, manpower deployment and operation exigencies, the competent authority issued the Office Order dated 18.03.2026 (Annexure A-1 to the OA), whereby the applicant was transferred from Danapur to Rajgir. The transfer order was made in administrative interest and not by way of punishment or as a consequence of any misconduct.

^3.2 The personal difficulties pleaded by the applicant, such as his medical condition, the health of his father and the education of his children, have been projected only to seek retention at Danapur. While the respondents have due sympathy for such personal circumstances, the same do not create any enforceable legal right to remain posted at one station indefinitely, particularly when administrative interest requires otherwise.

^3.3 Pursuant to the order passed by this Tribunal in OA No. 198 of 2026, the representation submitted by the applicant was duly examined by the competent authority. After considering all relevant facts, the representation was rejected by a reasoned order. Therefore, the respondents have fully complied with the directions issued by this Tribunal and no violation thereof has been committed.

^3.4 The seniority list is a matter of record; however, the respondents deny that seniority alone governs transfer. It is also denied that the existence of vacancies at Danapur or nearby stations confers any enforceable right upon the applicant to insist upon his posting at place of his choice. It is submitted that the authority competent to effect transfers is best suited to assess manpower requirements, distribution of staff and operational necessity. The applicant cannot claim posting against a particular vacancy merely because such vacancy exists.

^3.5 Each transfer is decided on the basis of prevailing requirements of the administration. Therefore, the applicant has failed to establish violation of any statutory rule or mandatory provision of the Railway Board’s policy.

^3.6 Moreover, it is settled Principle of Service Jurisprudence that transfer is an incidence of service. An employee holding a transferable post has no vested or indefeasible right to remain posted at a particular station. The choice of posting lies exclusively within the domain of the employer. In state of UP vs. Gobardhan Lal, (2004) 11 SCC 402, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reiterated that transfer is primarily an administrative matter and judicial review is permissible only where the order is shown to be mala fide or contrary to statutory provisions. Therefore, the present Original Application may be dismissed in view of above facts and circumstances.

^4.1 The impugned transfer order is wholly unsustainable as there is no sanctioned post of Chief Office Superintendent—neither COS (Mech/TS) nor COS (C&W)—at Rajgir for the Book of Sanction (BOS) year 2025–26, as obtained under the RTI Act reply dated 06.07.2026 (Annexure P/1). Furthermore, the BOS for 2026–27 also shows no post for COS (Mech/TS) at Rajgir. Even if the single post of COS (C&W) shown at Rajgir were considered, it has no relation to the applicant, rendering the transfer arbitrary and legally infirm.

^4.2 The action of the respondents is highly discriminatory. While employees listed at Serial Nos. 2 to 7 and 14 of Annexure A/3, who belong to the COS (C&W) cadre, have been permitted to remain posted at the same location for many years (such as Sri Ranjit Kumar, COS (C&W), posted at Danapur since 21.01.2019 without transfer, the applicant has been transferred out even before completing two years of service at Danapur.

^4.3 The arbitrary nature of the impugned action is further evident from the promotion order dated 01.07.2026 (Annexure P/4), wherein several employees were promoted to the post of COS (C&W) but retained at their existing stations without undergoing any transfer, while the applicant has been selectively targeted.

^4.4 The transfer order directly violates Rules 562 and 563(ii) of the Indian Railway Medical Manual (IRMM), 2000 (Annexure P/2), which mandate that an employee suffering from a serious ailment cannot be transferred without the recommendation of a Railway Doctor upon submitting a representation. The applicant suffers from a severe cardiac condition, and Rajgir lacks specialized Railway medical facilities for cardiac care, which are only available at Central Hospital, Patna.

^4.5 Despite the applicant submitting detailed representations on 30.03.2026 and 19.05.2026 (Annexure P-5 series) requesting permission to continue at Danapur and for release of salary, Respondent No. 5 issued a charge sheet on 09.06.2026 (Annexure P-6) for non-joining at Rajgir. The applicant submitted a reply on 18.06.2026 (Annexure P-7) highlighting his serious health condition and the pending proceedings. The issuance of a charge sheet in this context demonstrates clear malice, bias, and disregard for governing rules.

^4.6 In light of the above facts, the impugned transfer order and subsequent penal proceedings are discriminatory, malicious, contrary to Railway rules, and unsustainable in law. It is humbly prayed that the impugned orders be set aside in the interest of justice.

^5.1 It is an admitted fact that the applicant was initially appointed as Assistant Loco Pilot and was subsequently medically de-categorised due to a cardiac problem. Thereafter, he was accommodated against an alternative ministerial post and was later promoted to the post of Chief Office Superintendent (Mechanical/TS), Level-7. The applicant has challenged the transfer order dated 18.03.2026, whereby he was transferred from Danapur to Rajgir, as well as the subsequent order dated 17.04.2026 rejecting his representation. The respondents, on the other hand, have submitted that the transfer was made in administrative interest and in view of manpower requirements and operational exigencies.

^5.2 The settled position of law is that transfer is an incidence of service, and an employee holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at a particular station of his choice. The employer is best placed to assess its administrative requirements and decide the posting of its employees. Judicial interference in transfer matters is warranted only when the transfer order is shown to be contrary to a statutory provision, issued by an incompetent authority, or vitiated by mala fides or other legally recognised grounds. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Gobardhan Lal, (2004) 11 SCC 402, has reiterated these principles.

^5.3 The applicant has contended that the transfer order is arbitrary because certain vacancies were available at Danapur and nearby stations, whereas he was transferred to Rajgir. He has also relied upon the ^Patna Railway Board’s policy dated 17.08.2023, particularly paragraph 4.2(i), to argue that the junior-most employee should be transferred in the event of a reduction in cadre strength. However, the mere existence of vacancies at a particular station does not confer an enforceable right upon an employee to claim posting against such vacancies. Similarly, seniority by itself does not determine the place of posting in every case. The applicant has not been able to establish, on the basis of the material placed on record, that the transfer order violates any mandatory provision of the applicable policy or that the respondents were legally bound to retain him at Danapur.

^5.4 The applicant has further relied upon the RTI reply dated 06.07.2026 to contend that no sanctioned post of Chief Office Superintendent (Mechanical/TS) was available at Rajgir during the relevant period. This contention has been considered. However, the mere assertion regarding the absence of a sanctioned post, without establishing the complete relevant cadre position, the applicable staffing arrangements and the specific rules governing the applicant’s transfer, is not sufficient by itself to conclude that the transfer order is illegal. In fact, it has been observed that there was no post of COS in year 2025-26 as reflected by the applicant himself in page 18 of his rejoinder. But there was a post of COS in 2026-27 as indicated in the chart annexed with page 20 of the same rejoinder. The impugned transfer order was issued on 18.03.2026 and the salary will be due in the financial year 2026-27 that commenced within 13 days of this order. The applicant has tried to play down this fact by stating that this post is meant for COS (C&W) ^Patna whereas he is posted as COS(Mech/TS). This Tribunal observes that the respondents have sufficient basis to draw salary against the same post of COS albeit of other nomenclature because it carries same pay. Thus, the applicant has not placed sufficient material before this Tribunal to establish that the transfer was made in violation of a binding statutory provision. Therefore, this ground does not warrant interference with the impugned order in the present proceedings.

^5.5 The allegation of discrimination has also been considered. The applicant has referred to other employees who, according to him, have continued at their respective stations for a longer period, and has relied upon the promotion order dated 01.07.2026 to show that certain employees were promoted without being transferred. However, the circumstances of other employees, their cadre, duties, administrative requirements and the reasons for their respective postings may differ from those of the applicant. The fact that some employees have continued at a particular station does not, by itself, establish that the applicant has been singled out for discriminatory treatment. In the absence of sufficient material demonstrating hostile discrimination or mala fide intention on the part of the respondents, this Tribunal is unable to accept the applicant’s contention on this ground.

^5.6 The medical condition of the applicant and the health of his aged father are matters of concern and have been taken into consideration. The applicant has also stated that his two minor children are studying and that specialised cardiac treatment is available at Patna but not at Rajgir. These circumstances ^Patna undoubtedly deserve sympathetic consideration by the competent administrative authority. However, personal and family difficulties, by themselves, do not confer an absolute legal right to remain posted at a particular station. The applicant has relied upon Rules 562 and 563(ii) of the Indian Railway Medical Manual, 2000, to contend that an employee suffering from a serious ailment cannot be transferred without the recommendation of a Railway Doctor. Nevertheless, on the material placed before this Tribunal, the applicant has not sufficiently established that the impugned transfer was made in direct violation of the specific requirements of these provisions. Accordingly, this ground also does not provide sufficient basis for setting aside the transfer order.

^5.7 As regards the order dated 17.04.2026, the record shows that the applicant had earlier approached this Tribunal in OA No. 198 of 2026, which was disposed of on 27.03.2026 with a direction to the competent authority to consider and decide his representation dated 23.03.2026 within the stipulated period. The respondents have stated that the representation was considered and rejected by the subsequent order. Although the applicant has described the rejection order as cryptic and non-speaking, the material available before this Tribunal does not establish sufficient grounds to hold that the said order is liable to be quashed. Mere disagreement with the decision taken by the authority does not, by itself, make the decision illegal. No sufficient material has been placed on record to establish deliberate disobedience of the earlier order of this Tribunal.

^5.8 The applicant has also challenged the charge sheet dated 09.06.2026 issued on account of his failure to join at Rajgir and has alleged mala fides on the part of the respondents. However, the issuance of a charge sheet does not, by itself, establish mala fides or prove that the transfer order is illegal. The validity of any disciplinary action would depend upon the relevant facts, the applicable service rules and the proceedings conducted in accordance with law. Moreover, this charge memo is not the part of challenge in the instant O.A. and does not require any adjudication here. In the present case, the applicant has not established sufficient grounds to conclude that the impugned transfer order was issued with a mala fide intention or that the subsequent action of the respondents was so arbitrary as to warrant interference in these proceedings.

^5.9 On an overall consideration of the pleadings, the rival submissions and the documents available on record, this Tribunal finds that the applicant has not been able to establish that the transfer order dated 18.03.2026 or the order dated 17.04.2026 rejecting his representation against this transfer order, suffers from any illegality warranting judicial interference. The grounds raised by the applicant, including the availability of vacancies at Danapur, the alleged violation of the transfer policy, the medical condition of the applicant, his family circumstances and the alleged discrimination, have been considered. However, the material on record does not establish a sufficient legal basis for granting the reliefs sought in the Original Application. It is well settled that this Tribunal cannot substitute its own view for that of the competent administrative authority in matters of transfer.

^{Patna 5.10} Accordingly, the Original Application is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.