Rohit William vs Union Of India & Ors.

Shri Pankaj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents are present and heard on amendment application as well as on stay vacation application.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present Original Application was initially filed challenging the transfer order dated 13.01.2026 and the consequential relieving order dated 07.05.2026, whereby the applicant was relieved from Dagmagpur Railway Station, District Mirzapur, for joining at Mota Railway Station, District Mainpuri. It is contended that, although the transfer order dated 13.01.2026 described the applicant’s transfer as being on his own request, the applicant had never submitted any such request. Learned counsel further submits that Sri Anurag Singh, who was transferred under the very same transfer order, was granted relief by the respondents following the intervention of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 134 of 2026. During the pendency of the present proceedings, the respondents, in their counter-affidavit, disclosed that a corrigendum/order dated 23.01.2026 had been issued, whereby the nature of the applicant’s transfer was changed from “Own Request Transfer” to “Administrative Transfer”. It is specifically contended that the aforesaid corrigendum/order dated 23.01.2026 was never communicated or intimated to the applicant, and he came to know of the same only through the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents. The respondents have further relied upon a speaking/rejection order dated 05.05.2026 passed on the applicant’s representation dated 10.03.2026. In view of these subsequent developments, learned counsel submits that the proposed amendments are necessary for the effective and complete adjudication of the controversy involved in the present Original Application. Accordingly, the applicant seeks permission to incorporate additional facts in paragraphs 4.28 to 4.30 after paragraph 4.27, additional grounds 5.15 to 5.21 after ground 5.14, and additional prayers (f) to (h) after prayer (e), thereby specifically challenging the legality and validity of the corrigendum/order dated 23.01.2026 and the speaking/rejection order dated 05.05.2026, and seeking production of the original official records relating to the transfer order, corrigendum and consequential proceedings, including relevant file notings, dispatch entries and proof of communication. Learned counsel, therefore, prays that the amendment application be allowed in the interest of justice.

Learned counsel for the respondents opposes the amendment application and submits that the proposed amendments are not necessary and should not be permitted at this stage. He further submits that the interim order passed in the present Original Application deserves to be vacated in view of the subsequent developments and the administrative nature of the applicant’s transfer. It is also contended that interim relief is obtained by the applicant suppressing material facts and he has not placed before the Tribunal the order dated 23.01.2026, the corrigendum order. He further submitted that applicant transfer vide corrigendum order dated 23.01.2026 has been modified/passed on administrative exigencies. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the amendment application and vacation of the interim protection granted to the applicant.

Learned counsel for the application refuting the submissions advanced on behalf of the respondents and argued that although in specific term order dated 13.01.2026 has not been mentioned in the relief clause, yet the order dated 23.01.2026 was not within the knowledge of the applicant. It was never served upon him and due to this reason order dated 23.01.2026 could not be challenged. No material facts have been suppressed. Thus, stay vacation application is liable to be rejected.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the entire records.

Having considered the submissions advanced and the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the proposed amendments, which arise out of subsequent developments and relate to the corrigendum/order dated 23.01.2026 which is said to be unserved to the applicant and the speaking/rejection order dated 05.05.2026, are necessary for the effective and complete adjudication of the controversy involved in the present Original Application. Accordingly, the amendment application is allowed, and the applicant is permitted to carry out the necessary amendments in the Original Application within ten days from the date of this order. So far as the application seeking vacation of the interim order is concerned, I do not find any sufficient ground to vacate the interim protection at this stage. Consequently, the said application is dismissed, and the interim order shall continue to operate till the next date of listing. Learned counsel for the applicant is also hereby directed to supply a copy of the amended OA to the learned counsel for the respondents immediately after incorporating the amendment. The respondents shall be at liberty to file an additional counter-affidavit to the amended Original Application within four weeks, if so advised. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may also be filed within one week thereafter.

List this matter on 15.12.2026.