Sulekha Yadav vs Union Of India & Ors.

As Per: Hon’ble Mr. Ajay Pratap Singh, Member (J)

Heard the parties.

By way of the present OA, the applicant is seeking direction to set aside Establishment Order No. 15/2026 dated 29.04.2026 qua the applicant to the extent it transfers the Applicant from CRCL, New Delhi to Central Excise & Customs Laboratory, Vadodara and also to set aside consequential order dated 15.09.2026 qua the applicant and direct the respondent not to relieve the applicant and permit her to continue at CRCL, New Delhi.

The grievances of the applicant as projected by learned counsel for the applicant can be summarized as under –

Learned counsel appearing for the applicant, after arguing for some time, submits that applicant would be satisfied if direction is issued to the competent authority amongst the respondents to consider her pending representation dated 16.09.2026 (Annexure A-7) and till then status quo as on today be maintained.

Mr. Praveen Swarup, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on advance service, fairly submits that the pending representation of the applicant dated 16.09.2026 (Annexure A-7) shall be considered in accordance with law, if not already considered, as expeditiously as possible.

Heard. We have considered the matter. The fact of the matter that applicant has been transferred from CRCL, New Delhi to Central Excise and Customs Laboratory, Vadodara, vide transfer order dated 29.04.2026 and her name appears at serial no. 59 of said order and Mr. Ved Prakash Bairwa, CA, has been transferred at CRCL, New Delhi from Central Excise and Customs Laboratory, Vadodara. The challenge in the present O.A. as to impugned transfer order is mainly on the ground that as per transfer policy dated 08.02.2018, Clause 5(iii), an Officer whose children are studying in Class 10^th and 12^th shall usually be not disturbed from the place of posting for that year and on medical ground of father-in-law and mother-in-law, taking treatment at New Delhi and also seeking cancellation of transfer order on spouse grounds.

The fact of the matter, respondents have already passed office order dated 22.05.2026 (Annexure A-2A) and the impugned transfer order dated 29.04.2026 was kept in abeyance and shall not to executed until further orders. Mr. Ved Prakash Bairwa and the applicant has filed joint request for mutual retention at their present places of posting till next AGT and said representation dated 16.09.2026 (Annexure A-7) is still pending for consideration.

The Supreme Court recently in the case of Namrata Verma Vs. State of U.P. and others by order dated 06.09.2021 passed in SLP (Civil) No.36717/2017 has held that “it is not for the employee to insist to transfer him/her and/or not to transfer him/her at a particular place. It is for the employer to transfer an employee considering the requirement. Until and unless the transfer is vitiated by mala fide or is made in violation of any statutory provisions, the Court cannot interfere with the order of transfer. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, while dealing with the scope of judicial review in the matter of transfer, held that transfer is an incidence of service and normally should not be interfered with by the Court. If any administrative guidelines recalling transfer of an employee are violated, at best the same confers the right on the employee to approach the higher authorities for redressal of his grievance. [See: Union of India and Others v.S.L. Abbas, (1993) 4 SCC 357, State Bank of India v. Anjan Sanyal and others, (2001) 5 SCC 508, Public Services Tribunal Bar Association v. State of U.P. and another, (2003) 4 SCC 104, State of U.P. and Others v. Gobardhan Lal, (2004) 1 SCC 402, R.S. Chaudhary and Others v. State of M.P. and Others, ILR (2007) MP 1329, Government of Andhra Pradesh v. G.Venkata 4 WP. No. 4738/2017 (Braj Kishore Paliwal Vs. State of M.P. and others) Ratnam, (2008) 9 SCC 345 and State of Haryana and Others v. Kashmir Singh and Another, (2010) 13 SCC 306].

In case of Rajendra Roy vs. Union of India (1993) 1 SCC 148. Their Lordships observed that “in transfer matters personal difficulties are matters for consideration of the department and if such representation is made too about personal hardships, being suffered by the applicant in view of impugned Order, it is reasonable expected that the same should be considered by the department as expeditiously as practicable”.

In the case of Director of School Education Vs. Karuppa Thevan, (1994) Supp.2 SCC 666, Their Lordships held that “except in case of pressing urgency transfer in the midst of academic year disturbing the studies of children should be avoided”.

[Emphasis supplied]

The Division Bench of Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in case of R.S. Chaudhary Vs. State of M.P. & Ors, reported in ILR (2007) MP 1329, held after considering catena of judgments by Hon’ble Supreme Court that in case an order of transfer is assailed on the ground that there has been violation of the Transfer Policy, the proper remedy is to approach the authorities by pointing out the violation and it is expected of the authorities to deal with the same keeping in mind the policy guidelines with utmost objectivity.

For all the reasons stated hereinabove, this OA is disposed of at admission stage itself with the following directions to the respondents -

There shall be no order as to costs.

Pending Miscellaneous Application(s), if any, also stands closed.