AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 seeking following reliefs:-
“(i)To pass appropriate order or direction to transfer the applicant from office of the Principal Chief Controller of Accounts, Central Board of Direct Taxes, Zonal Accounts office 16/69, Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Kanpur to the existing and vacant post of Senior Account office in the office of pay and Account Office, All India Radio, Ministry of Information and Broad Casting Lucknowin order dated 25.07.2024 issued by Joint Controller General of Accounts Office of Controller General of Accounts, Department of Expenditure Ministry of Finance, New Delhi.
(ii)Grant such other relief, as the applicant might be found entitled to, in the facts and circumstances of the case.
(iii)Allow the original application with cost of the proceeding in favour of the applicant”.
The brief facts of the case are as follows:-
The applicant was posted as Senior Accounts Officer at Lucknow on 03.10.2018 and continued to serve there. Thereafter, he was transferred to the Internal Audit Wing, CRPF, Lucknow on 22.05.2023. Vide order dated 14.06.2024, the applicant was transferred to Kanpur, where he joined on 04.10.2024. He submitted a representation dated 18.06.2024 against the transfer and also approached the Lucknow Bench of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 332/00400/2024. The O.A. was disposed of on 09.07.2024 with a direction to decide his representation. The representation was rejected vide order dated 25.07.2024. Thereafter, the applicant submitted further representations dated 15.10.2024 and 19.06.2025 requesting his retention at Lucknow, but his grievance was not considered. The applicant submits that a post of Senior Accounts Officer has been lying vacant at Lucknow since 01.07.2025. Despite availability of the post and his repeated representations, his request for retention at Lucknow has not been considered. Hence, the present O.A.
Per contra, the respondents have filed their counter affidavit contending therein that sanctioned strength of Senior Accounts Officers in MHA, Lucknow was reduced from 04 to 03. Therefore, one officer had to be transferred out of Lucknow due to administrative requirement. It was submitted that Shri Jitendra Parkash, Senior Accounts Officer, was not considered for transfer as he was due to retire on 30.11.2024 and was covered by the relevant provision of the transfer policy. The applicant, who had the next longest tenure of about 5 years and 9 months at Lucknow, was accordingly transferred from MHA, Lucknow to ZAO, CBDT, Kanpur. The respondents further submitted that Kanpur was the nearest available station in the same Central Zone and the transfer was made as per the applicable transfer policy and administrative requirement. The applicant’s representation dated 18.06.2024 was duly considered and rejected by a reasoned and speaking order dated 25.07.2024. The applicant was relieved from Lucknow on 23.09.2024 and joined at Kanpur on 04.10.2024. The respondents submitted that the applicant has now sought transfer from Kanpur to the vacant post of Senior Accounts Officer at Pay & Accounts Office, All India Radio, Lucknow. However, transfer is an administrative matter and the applicant has no vested right to claim posting at a particular station. Therefore, the present O.A. is liable to be dismissed.
The applicant has filed Rejoinder Affidavit to the Counter Affidavit as filed by the respondents refuting the contentions made by the respondents in their Counter Affidavit while reiterating the averments made in the O.A. and nothing new has been added.
I have heard Shri Shree Prakash Giri, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the records.
Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been serving at Lucknow and was transferred from MHA, Lucknow to Kanpur vide order dated 14.06.2024. It was submitted that the applicant immediately challenged the transfer and submitted a representation dated 18.06.2024. Lucknow Bench of this Tribunal, vide order dated 09.07.2024, directed the competent authority to consider and decide the said representation by a reasoned and speaking order. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that although the representation was rejected vide order dated 25.07.2024, the applicant’s grievance was not properly considered. After joining at Kanpur, the applicant again submitted representations dated 15.10.2024 and 19.06.2025 requesting his posting at Lucknow. It was submitted that a post of Senior Accounts Officer is lying vacant at Lucknow since 01.07.2025, but the respondents have not considered the applicant’s request despite availability of the post. Learned counsel for the applicant next submitted that the applicant is not seeking any new post or promotion, but only seeks transfer to an existing vacant post of Senior Accounts Officer at Lucknow. The respondents have not shown any administrative difficulty in posting the applicant against the vacant post. Thus, he submitted that the request of the applicant deserves consideration by the competent authority.
In rebuttal, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the O.A. and submitted that the applicant was transferred from MHA, Lucknow to Kanpur due to administrative requirement, as the sanctioned strength of Senior Accounts Officers at Lucknow was reduced from four to three. Therefore, one officer was required to be transferred out of Lucknow. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that Shri Jitendra Parkash, Senior Accounts Officer, was not considered for transfer as he was due to retire on 30.11.2024 and was covered by the relevant provision of the transfer policy. The applicant, having the next longest tenure of about 5 years and 9 months at Lucknow, was accordingly transferred to Kanpur. It was further submitted that Kanpur was the nearest available station in the same Central Zone and the transfer was made in accordance with the applicable transfer policy and administrative requirement. The applicant’s representation dated 18.06.2024 was duly considered and rejected by a reasoned and speaking order dated 25.07.2024. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the applicant has already joined at Kanpur on 04.10.2024 and cannot claim transfer to Lucknow merely because a post is presently vacant there. Transfer and posting are matters within the administrative domain of the competent authority and an employee has no vested right to claim posting at a particular station. Therefore, the present O.A. is liable to be dismissed.
I have carefully considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the entire material available on record.
It is well settled that transfer is an incidence of service and normally the Tribunal should not interfere with an order of transfer. In Union of India Vs. S.L. Abbas, (1993) 4 SCC 357, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that
“the jurisdication of the Central Administrative Tribunal is akin to the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the constitution of India in service matters. This is evident from a persual of Article 323-A of the constitution. The constraints and norms which the High Court observes while exercising the said jurisdiction apply equally to the Tribunal created under Article 323-A. (We find it all the more surprising that the learned Single Member who passed the impugned order is a former Judge of the High Court and is thus aware of the norms and constraints of the writ jurisdiction.) The Administrative Tribunal is not an Appellate Authority sitting in judgment over the orders of transfer. It cannot substitute its own judgment for that of the authority competent to transfer. In this case the Tribunal has clearly exceeded its jurisdiction in interfering with the order of transfer. The order of the Tribunal reads as if it were sitting in appeal over the order of transfer made by the Senior Administrative Officer (competent authority)”. In Union of India Vs. Janardhan Debanath, (2004) 4 SCC 245, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also held that
“…………..No government servant or employee of a public undertaking has any legal right to be posted forever at any one particular place or place of his choice since transfer of a particular employee appointed to the class or category of transferable posts from one place to other is not only an incident, but a condition of service, necessary too in public interest and efficiency in the public administration. Unless an order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of mala fide exercise or stated to be in violation of statutory provisions prohibiting any such transfer, the courts or the tribunals normally cannot interfere with such orders as a matter of routine, as though they were the appellate authorities substituting their own decision for that of the employer/management, as against such orders passed in the interest of administrative exigencies of the service concerned………….”
In the present case, the respondents have given a specific reason for transferring the applicant from Lucknow. It has been stated that the sanctioned strength of Senior Accounts Officers at MHA, Lucknow was reduced from four to three and, therefore, one officer was required to be transferred out of Lucknow due to administrative requirement.
It has further been explained that Shri Jitendra Parkash, Senior Accounts Officer, who had a longer tenure at Lucknow, was not considered for transfer as he was due to retire on 30.11.2024 and was covered by the relevant provision of the transfer policy. The applicant, having the next longest tenure of about 5 years and 9 months, was accordingly considered for transfer.
The respondents have also stated that Kanpur was the nearest available station in the same Central Zone. The applicant has not been able to show that the transfer order was passed by an incompetent authority, was actuated by mala fide, or was in violation of any statutory provision. No such material has been placed on record before us.
The main grievance of the applicant is that a post of Senior Accounts Officer is lying vacant at Lucknow and, therefore, he should be transferred from Kanpur to Lucknow. However, merely because a post has become vacant at Lucknow, the applicant cannot claim a legal right to be posted against that post. The decision whether to fill the post and, if so, by whom, is a matter for the competent administrative authority.
I also find that the applicant’s representation dated 18.06.2024 was considered pursuant to the order dated 09.07.2024 passed by the Lucknow Bench of this Tribunal. The competent authority passed a reasoned and speaking order dated 25.07.2024 and rejected the request of the applicant. The respondents have thus complied with the direction issued by the Tribunal.
It is true that the applicant has been serving at Lucknow for a considerable period and has again requested his posting there. However, length of service at a particular station or availability of a vacancy does not create a vested right in favour of an employee to seek posting at that station.
In view of the settled law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.L. Abbas (supra) and Janardhan Debanath (supra), I find no ground to interfere with the administrative decision of the respondents. The transfer of the applicant from Lucknow to Kanpur has been explained on the basis of reduction in sanctioned strength and administrative requirement. There is no material before us to show arbitrariness, mala fide or violation of any statutory rule.
Accordingly, the prayer of the applicant for transfer from Kanpur to the vacant post of Senior Accounts Officer at Lucknow cannot be granted. The applicant has no vested right to claim posting at Lucknow merely on the ground that a post is lying vacant there.
For the reasons stated above, I find no merit in the present Original Application. The O.A. is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. All associated MAs stand disposed of.