AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
O R D E R
The applicant joined the services of the Respondents on 17.11.1993 as Store Clerk at Nagpur and has, since then, continuously serving at Nagpur for over 32 years and presently holding the post of Store Keeper, Engineering Division, Geological Survey of India, Central Region, Seminary Hills, Nagpur. Aggrieved by Annexure A-1 transfer order dated 03.07.2026, the applicant has approached this Tribunal.
The applicant was earlier transferred vide Office Order dated 18.02.2026 (Annexure A8) from GSI, CR, Nagpur to GSI, CR, Pune on public interest. Being aggrieved by Annexure A-8 order, the applicant submitted a representation dated 23.02.2026 (Annexure A-9), detailing his personal difficulties regarding health issue of his spouse and mother-in-law etc., which was not initially acceded to vide Annexure A-10 order dated 26.02.2026. However, on his re-representation (Annexure A-11) dated 02.03.2026, Annexure A-8 order was modified (Annexure A-12) and the applicant was transferred to Engineering Division, GSI, CR, Nagpur, thereby retaining him at Napgur itself.
The applicant claims that he being the General Secretary, is entitled to protection from being shifted from the main administrative office/Headquarter to a subordinate office, except for special reasons in terms of DoPT OM No.27(7)/88-CS IV dated 19.08.1988. The applicant submits that he has declined offers of promotion previously on four occasions to the post of Stores Officer (Group B), which is an All India Service transferable post, precisely to avoid future liability of transfer out of Nagpur, so as to enable him to continue to attend to his ailing family members at Nagpur
The applicant cites order of this Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench in OA No.558/2019 {G. Sanjeev Kumar vs. UoI, Chairman, CWC & 2 others} decided on 28.06.2022 (Annexure A-17) wherein transfer order of General Secretary of a recognized Association was set aside being violative in terms of DoPT OM dated 19.08.1988
Aggrieved by the impugned order (Annexure A-1), the applicant has sought the following reliefs:-
(i)call for the records pertaining to the impugned Office Order No.419/A-20015/1/2007/Estt.-(M) dated 03/07/2026, passed by Respondent No.4;
(ii)quash and set aside the impugned Office Order No.419/A-20015/1/2007/Estt.-(M) dated 03/07/2026, being illegal, arbitrary, mala fide and violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India;
(iii)direct the Respondents to retain and continue the applicant at Nagpur;
(iv)award costs of this Original Application in favour of the applicant; and
(v)pass such other order(s) or direction(s) as this Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.
Respondents in their reply statement submit that as there was a requisition from GSI, Pune office vide email dated 09.10.2025 regarding posting of store personnel at GSI, Pune office for smooth functioning, the Applicant was transferred from Nagpur to Pune vide Office Order dated 18.02.2026 (Annexure A-8) in public interest and on account of functional requirements. The applicant submitted a representation requesting cancellation of the transfer order. The competent authority, considering the Applicant's personal and family circumstances, sympathetically examined representation and retained him at Nagpur. The Respondents had repeatedly accommodated the Applicant by considering his requests on humanitarian grounds by allowing him to continue at Nagpur for an exceptionally long period, but it does not bestow a legal right upon the applicant to continue at Nagpur forever.
The respondents further plead that Pune office had again submitted and reminded that Shri P.N. Welekar, Store Manager is retiring from service w.e.f. 30.06.2026 and atleast one store personnel is urgently required to be posted at the earliest in SU:Maharashra, Pune. Shri P.N. Welekar, Store Manager retired on superannuation w.e.f. 30.06.2026, as a result, there arose an urgent administrative and functional necessity to post an experienced Store official at Pune. In these circumstances, the competent authority found it necessary to transfer the Applicant to Pune in the interest of public service and smooth functioning of the department and purely on administrative grounds and in public interest.
Respondents admit that the applicant is General Secretary and contend this does not give him a right to remain at one station permanently. The transfer is in public interest. The Ministry of Home Affairs O.M. No. 23/3/69-Estt(B) dated 08.04.1969 and Ministry of Urban Development guidelines state that the General Secretary may be retained at headquarters "as far as possible.” This concession is only a directory, not a mandatory statutory right that blocks all administrative reallocations.
The applicant has remained at Nagpur for more than 32 years. Due to the retirement of the Store Manager at Pune, an urgent administrative need arose. Therefore, the transfer dated 03.07.2026 was made purely in public interest and in administrative exigency.
In various Judgment/Orders of Hon'ble Courts and Tribunals, it has been held that the transfer is a prerogative of the administration to ensure efficient and effective administration. The transfer is an exigency of service and is an administrative decision. It is a condition of service. It is entirely for employer to decide when, where and what point of time a public servant is transferred from his present posting. Ordinarily, the courts have no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of transfer and the scope of judicial review of transfer is very limited. Therefore, the Original Application deserves to be dismissed.
It is also submitted the respondents that the applicant had filed the representation dated 06.07.2026, received by them on 10.07.2026. The communication of the decision on representation is pending in view of filing of the instant O.A. by the applicant.
Shri R. Sidharth, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Bhaskar D. Pandit, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents were heard on 10.09.2026 at length. Perused the documents on record. The basic issue evolves whether transfer order of the applicant is in violation of DoPT OM No.27(7)/88-CS.IV dated 19.08.1988 or not.
For clarity of purpose, clause 4 of that OM dated 19.08.1988 is reproduced below:
4(ii). Union functionaries of JCM should not be shifted from Main administrative office to subordinate office: The President and General Secretary of the Branch Unit of the recognized Union/Association who are members of the Staff Council should not, except for special reasons, be shifted from main administrative office to subordinate office(including other offices or buildings).
Evidently, there was a communication from GSI, Pune Office regarding vacancy of a Store Manager, consequent upon superannuation of Shri P.N. Welekar, Store Manager with effect from 30.06.2026. On this very specific reason, the respondents posted the applicant to meet administrative and functional necessity of Pune unit.
The applicant has been working in Nagpur for over 32 years. That does not confer any legal right upon the applicant to continue at Nagpur forever if the administration decides to transfer him in public interest. In a catena of judgements, the Hon’ble Apex Court had held that transfer is an exigency of service and it is entirely for the employer to decide when and where and at what point of time a public servant is transferred from his present posting.
The Hon’ble Apex Court in Pubi Lombi v. State of Arunachal Pradesh (2024 SCC Online SC 279) dated 13.03.2024, has held the following at para 9 :
"9.In the case of Union of India and others Vs. S.L. Abbas; 1993 (4) SCC 357, it is clearly observed by this Court that the scope of judicial review is only available when there is a clear violation of statutory provision or the transfer is persuaded by malafide, non-observation of executive instructions does not confer a legally enforceable right to an employee holding a transferable post. The relevant paragraph reads as under:
"7.Who should be transferred where, is a matter for the appropriate authority to decide. Unless the order of transfer is vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any statutory provisions, the court cannot interfere with it. While ordering the transfer, there is no doubt, the authority must keep in mind the guidelines issued by the Government on the subject......"
9.1.Further, following the footsteps of S.L. Abbas (supra) this Court in the case of Union of India and another Vs. N.P. Thomas; 1993 Supp (1) SCC 704 held that the interference by the Court in an order of transfer on the instance of an employee holding a transferable post without any violation of statutory provision is not permissible."
Respondents have made out specific grounds for transferring applicant from Nagpur to Pune to fill up the vacancy caused by superannuation of Shri P.N. Welekar, Store Manager on 30.06.2026 in public interest to meet the administration requirements. Therefore, interference with the impugned order (Annexure A-1) is not called for at this stage in view of pendency of his representation (Annexure A-16).
I also note that the applicant moved this Tribunal against impugned transfer order dated 03.07.2026 immediately after submitting a representation dated 06.07.2026 (Annexure A-16), which was received by the respondent on 10.07.2026, the interim order was granted on 14.07.2026 by this Tribunal. The respondents submit that communication of the decision on the representation is pending in view of filing of the instant OA by the applicant.
Therefore, it would be appropriate in the interest of justice that the competent authority among the respondents is directed to dispose of the Annexure A-16 representation dated 06.07.2026, as expeditiously as possible, within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, by a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with the Rules and in terms of the DoPT OM No.27(7)/88-CS.IV dated 19.08.1988, unencumbered by my observations in the preceding paragraphs. Interim order is extended till the disposal of the representation by a speaking order.
The OA is disposed of, as above. No costs.
List of Annexures in OA No.513/2026
Annexure A-1: Copy of the impugned Office Order No.419/A-20015/1/2007/Estt.(M) dated 03.07.2026
Annexure A-2: Notification of applicant’s position as General Secretary of the recognized Association/Union of GSI employees dated 24.02.2025
Annexure A-3: Copy of Memorandum No.A 32013/SO/DPC/2017-18 & 2018/Pers.I dated 28.11.2018
Annexure A-4: Copy of applicant’s letter dated 17.12.2018
Annexure A-5: Copy of Office Order No.208/A-32013/St.O/DPC/2024/Pers-I dated 01.07.2024
Annexure A-6: Copy of Office Order No.219/A-32013/St.O/DPC(Supple. & Regular)/2024 & 2025 /Pers-I dated 07.10.2025
Annexure A-7: Copy of applicant’s non-acceptance letter dated 09.10.2025
Annexure A-8: Copy of Office Order No.117/A-20015/1/2007/Est.-(M) dated 18.02.2026
Annexure A-9: Copy of applicant’s representation dated 23.02.2026
Annexure A-10: Copy of Letter No.131/A-20015/1/2007/Estt.(M) dated 26.02.2026
Annexure A-11: Copy of applicant’s representation dated 02.03.2026
Annexure A-12: Copy of Office Order No.149/A-20015/1/2007/Estt.-(M) dated 06.03.2026
Annexure A-13: Copy of Relieving Order No.301/A-19011/SRS/195/SUM/2015 dated 11.03.2026
Annexure A-14: Copy of Office Order No.470/A-22022/Off.Ord./HQ Engg/CR/21 dated 06.05.2026
Annexure A-15: Copies of Office Orders (three) Nos.36, 36 & 38/C-11019/01/SI/VIG./GSI/CR/2026 (Vigilance Inspection Committee nominations), collectively
Annexure A-16: Copy of applicant’s representation dated 06.07.2026
Annexure A-17: Copy of order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal , Hyderabad Bench in OA No.558/2019 (G. Sanjeev Kumar vs. Union of India & ors) dated 28.06.2022