Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Udham Singh vs Defence on 25 March, 2026
1
Item No. 27 O.A. No. 3335/2023
Court No. VI
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No. 3335/2023
Reserved on :- 25.02.2026
Pronounced on:- 25.03.2026
Hon'ble Mr. Rajveer Singh Verma, Member (J)
1. Udham Singh, P No. 6971638, Age- 35 Yrs., S/o Sh. Om
Parkash, R/o Plot No. C-1/10, Kh. No. 21-911, 1st
Floor, Gali No. 2, Block-C, Harshit Vihar Road, Burari,
New Delhi-110084.
2. Daya Chand, P No. 69704079, Age-55 Yrs., S/o Sh.
Chandgi Ram, R/o A-97, Gali No. 6; Sitaram Park
Nangloi, Delhi 110041
3. Awadhesh Kumar Sharma, P No. 6970800, Age-51 Yrs.,
S/o Sh. Sukhlal Sharma, R/o H.No 207, Gali No. 19, Jai
Vihar Part-3rd, Harphool Vihar, Baprola, Delhi-110043
4. Rajiv Kumar, P No. 6970409A, Age 43 Yrs., S/o Sh.
Krishan, R/o VPO Kheri Jasour, Teh. Bahadurgarh,
Jhajjar, Haryana-124505.
...Applicants
(By Advocates: Mr. Anoop Kumar
Versus
1. Union of India, Through the Secretary, Ministry of
Defence, Govt. of India, South Block, New Delhi-11.
2. The Director General of Ordnance Services (OS-8C),
MGO's Branch, IHQ of MoD (Army) A Wing, Sena
Bhawan, New Delhi-11.
SHILPI GUPTA 3. The Director General of Ordnance Services (OS-20),
SHILPI GUPTA 2026.03.25
15:42:54+05'30'
MGO's Branch, IHQ of MoD (Army) D-II Wing, Sena
Bhawan, New Delhi-11.
4. The OIC, AOC Records, PIN-900453 C/o 56 APO.
5. The OIC, Col. OSG, Delhi, PIN-900106 Clo 56 APO
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Ms. Seema Grover)
2
Item No. 27 O.A. No. 3335/2023
Court No. VI
ORDER
By way of the present Original Application, the applicants have prayed for the following reliefs:-
"(a) Directing the respondents to place the relevant records pertaining to the present O.A. before the Tribunal for the proper adjudication in the interest of justice.
(b) Quash and setting aside the impugned orders dt.
27.05.23 (Annexure A/1) transferring the applicants deliberately, biased, perverse, discriminatory and in arbitrary manner contrary to the provisions of Record Office Instruction dt. 10.05.22 even without asking and considering the choice/options of the applicants for posting/transfer within 50 Km distances from the present place of posting (as sought by other Fire Fighting Staff) earlier to issuance of the aforesaid transfer order;
(c) Directing the respondents to issue orders in terms of provisions stipulated under Record Office Instructions dt. 10.05.22 that· has been made after detailed deliberation on the subject.
(d) Allowing the O.A. of the applicants with all other consequential benefits and costs.
(e) Any other fit and proper relief may also be granted."
2. Highlighting the facts of the present case, learned counsel for the applicants submitted as under:
2.1. He submitted that the applicants were duly appointed as Fireman on different dates after completing all prescribed formalities under relevant recruitment SHILPI GUPTA SHILPI GUPTA 2026.03.25 rules. The applicants have rendered long, continuous, 15:42:54+05'30' and unblemished service with commendable records and earned appreciation from superior authorities. Their promotions to higher posts (LHF 'A'/FED 'A') were 3 Item No. 27 O.A. No. 3335/2023 Court No. VI granted as per their eligibility on different dates in accordance with existing Recruitment Rules.
2.2. He submitted that in the year 2019 the closure of Central Vehicle Depot, Delhi Cantt. was initiated, accompanied by a clear assurance that employees would be adjusted in other units without prejudice. After the disbandment the applicants were surplus and posted on turnover basis after serving in tenure areas, fulfilling mandatory service obligations. The sudden issuance of ROI C/01/2022 and cancellation of earlier postings is arbitrary and disrupts settled service conditions.
2.3. He further submitted that similarly situated employees have already challenged the same action before this Tribunal in O.A. no. 2400/2023 and have been granted interim protection. The applicants herein have made representations to the respondents highlighting their grievance, but there were no use of the same.
2.4. He also submitted that the redeployment order SHILPI GUPTA dated 27.05.2023 is discriminatory and violates SHILPI GUPTA 2026.03.25 15:42:54+05'30' principles of natural justice and legitimate expectation.
The applicants continue to serve without relieving orders, showing inconsistency and arbitrariness in implementation. Therefore, the impugned orders deserve 4 Item No. 27 O.A. No. 3335/2023 Court No. VI to be quashed, and the applicants seeks the same relief as already been granted to the similarly situated persons.
3. Opposing the grant of relief, learned counsel for the respondents would rely upon the averments contained in the counter affidavit. She raised the preliminary objections and contended that the OA is not maintainable as no enforceable legal right of the applicants has been violated by the impugned orders. She contended that the applicants have made misleading and incorrect averments, attempting to re-agitate settled issues, hence the OA deserves dismissal. 3.1. She highlighted that due to disbandment of OD Shakurbasti and CVD Delhi, surplus staff were required to be redeployed in public interest and retaining surplus employees without work results in wastage of public funds, justifying their transfer to units facing staff shortages. All posting orders were issued strictly in accordance with policy ROI C/01/2022 and with approval of the competent authority (IHQ MoD Army). SHILPI GUPTA SHILPI GUPTA 2026.03.25 15:42:54+05'30' 3.2. She further highlighted that the redeployment was carried out based on seniority, tenure, and availability of vacancies, ensuring fairness and transparency. The 5 Item No. 27 O.A. No. 3335/2023 Court No. VI applicants have already served more than the prescribed tenure in Delhi and are liable for transfer as per rules. She also highlighted that preference was given to retain senior employees and those above 57 years, while surplus staff were posted out systematically. No prejudice has been caused to the applicants, as postings were made to nearby peaceful stations based on administrative requirements.
3.3. She stated that as per policy provisions, postings can be ordered in organizational interest without assigning reasons, and such decisions are not open to challenge. The applicants cannot claim parity with other trades due to different staffing authorizations and operational requirements. Therefore, the OA is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed with costs in the interest of justice and public administration.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon careful consideration of the pleadings and material available on record, the following issues arise for determination in the present Original Application:
SHILPI GUPTA SHILPI GUPTA 2026.03.25 15:42:54+05'30'
(i) Whether the impugned transfer/redeployment orders dated 27.05.2023 warrant interference in exercise of judicial review in service matters?6 Item No. 27 O.A. No. 3335/2023
Court No. VI
(ii) Whether the respondents have adhered to the Record Office Instructions dated 10.05.2022 while issuing the impugned orders?
(iii) Whether the impugned action is arbitrary and discriminatory so as to offend Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India?
(iv) To what relief, if any, the applicants are entitled? Issue No. (i): Scope of Interference in Transfer Matters
5. It is a well-entrenched principle of service jurisprudence that transfer is an incidence of service and forms an integral condition of employment. The prerogative to decide the place and manner of deployment of its employees squarely rests with the employer, having regard to administrative exigencies, functional requirements and organizational interest. An employee, therefore, cannot claim, as a matter of right, to continue at a particular station or insist upon a posting of choice.
5.1. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union SHILPI GUPTA of India vs. S.L. Abbas, (1993) 4 SCC 357, has held:
SHILPI GUPTA 2026.03.25 15:42:54+05'30' "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."7 Item No. 27 O.A. No. 3335/2023
Court No. VI 5.2. Ordinarily, courts and tribunals exercise self- restraint in interfering with transfer orders, recognizing that such decisions involve considerations which are best left to the administrative wisdom of the competent authority. The scope of judicial review in such matters is, thus, narrow and circumscribed, and does not extend to examining the sufficiency or desirability of the reasons underlying the transfer.
5.3. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. vs. Gobardhan Lal, (2004) 11 SCC 402, has held:
"7. It is too late in the day for any government servant to contend that once appointed or posted in a particular place or position, he should continue in such place or position as long as he desires. Transfer of an employee is not only an incident inherent in the terms of appointment but also implicit as an essential condition of service in the absence of any specific indication to the contra, in the law governing or conditions of service. Unless the order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of a mala fide exercise of power or violative of any statutory provision (an Act or rule) or passed by an authority not competent to do so, an order of transfer cannot lightly be interfered with as a matter of course or routine for any or every type of grievance sought to be made. Even administrative guidelines for regulating transfers or containing transfer policies at best may afford an opportunity to the officer or servant concerned to approach their higher authorities for redress but cannot have the consequence of depriving or denying the competent authority to transfer a particular officer/servant to any place in public interest and as is found necessitated by exigencies of service as long as the official status is not affected adversely and there is no infraction of any career prospects such as seniority, SHILPI GUPTA SHILPI GUPTA 2026.03.25 scale of pay and secured emoluments. This Court has 15:42:54+05'30' often reiterated that the order of transfer made even in transgression of administrative guidelines cannot also be interfered with, as they do not confer any legally enforceable rights, unless, as noticed supra, shown to be vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any statutory provision.
8. A challenge to an order of transfer should normally be eschewed and should not be countenanced by the courts or tribunals as though they are Appellate 8 Item No. 27 O.A. No. 3335/2023 Court No. VI Authorities over such orders, which could assess the niceties of the administrative needs and requirements of the situation concerned. This is for the reason that courts or tribunals cannot substitute their own decisions in the matter of transfer for that of competent authorities of the State and even allegations of mala fides when made must be such as to inspire confidence in the court or are based on concrete materials and ought not to be entertained on the mere making of it or on consideration borne out of conjectures or surmises and except for strong and convincing reasons, no interference could ordinarily be made with an order of transfer."
5.4. At the same time, it is equally settled that administrative discretion, however wide, is not absolute or unbridled. The exercise of power must conform to the basic tenets of fairness, non-arbitrariness and reasonableness which permeate all State action. A transfer order, though administrative in nature, must stand the test of legality in terms of the decision-making process.
5.5. In this context, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in E.P. Royappa vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (1974) 4 SCC 3, has held:
"The basic principle which, therefore, informs both Articles 14 and 16 is equality and inhibition against discrimination. Now, what is the content and reach of this great equalising principle? It is a founding faith, to use the words of Bose. J., "a way of life", and it must not be subjected to a narrow pedantic or lexicographic approach. We cannot countenance any attempt to truncate its all-embracing scope and meaning, for to do SHILPI GUPTA so would be to violate its activist magnitude. Equality is SHILPI GUPTA 2026.03.25 a dynamic concept with many aspects and dimensions 15:42:54+05'30' and it cannot be "cribbed, cabined and confined" within traditional and doctrinaire limits. From a positivistic point of view, equality is antithetic to arbitrariness. In fact equality and arbitrariness are sworn enemies; one belongs to the rule of law in a republic while the other, to the whim and caprice of an absolute monarch. Where an act is arbitrary, it is implicit in it that it is unequal both according to political logic and constitutional law 9 Item No. 27 O.A. No. 3335/2023 Court No. VI and is therefore violative of Article 14, and if it effects any matter relating to public employment, it is also violative of Article 16. Articles 14 and 16 strike at arbitrariness in State action and ensure fairness and equality of treatment. They require that State action must be based on valid relevant principles applicable alike to all similarly situate and it must not be guided by any extraneous or irrelevant considerations because that would be denial of equality. Where the operative reason for State action, as distinguished from motive inducing from the antechamber of the mind, is not legitimate and relevant but is extraneous and outside the area of permissible considerations, it would amount to mala fide exercise of power and that is hit by Articles 14 and 16. Mala fide exercise of power and arbitrariness are different lethal radiations emanating from the same vice: in fact the latter comprehends the former. Both are inhibited by Articles 14 and 16."
Interference would, therefore, be warranted where the transfer is demonstrated to be vitiated by mala fides, or is founded on extraneous or irrelevant considerations, or where it results from a manifestly arbitrary exercise of power. Similarly, if the transfer is effected in disregard of a governing statutory provision or in patent deviation from a binding policy, without any rational justification, the same would fall within the zone of judicial scrutiny. 5.6. It is also to be noted that while hardship or personal inconvenience may not, by itself, furnish a ground for interference, such factors may assume relevance where they indicate non-application of mind or unequal SHILPI GUPTA SHILPI GUPTA 2026.03.25 treatment when compared with similarly situated 15:42:54+05'30' employees.
5.7. Thus, the legal position that emerges is that while the authority enjoys wide latitude in matters of transfer, 10 Item No. 27 O.A. No. 3335/2023 Court No. VI such power is conditioned by the requirement that it be exercised in a fair, transparent and non-discriminatory manner, consistent with the applicable rules and policy framework. Where the decision-making process fails to meet these standards, limited judicial interference is not only permissible but warranted to uphold the mandate of equality and rule of law.
Issue No. (ii): Adherence to Policy (ROI dated 10.05.2022)
6. It is equally well settled that when an authority formulates a policy to regulate its actions, it is bound to act in accordance with such policy and cannot depart therefrom arbitrarily. The power of the State and its instrumentalities is not unguided; rather, once norms are prescribed for the exercise of such power, they constitute the framework within which administrative discretion must operate. Any departure from such norms must be supported by cogent and rational justification, failing which the action becomes vulnerable on the touchstone of arbitrariness.
SHILPI GUPTA 6.1. It is well settled that State action must conform to SHILPI GUPTA 2026.03.25 15:42:54+05'30' self-imposed standards and cannot be arbitrary or selective in application.
6.2. The Record Office Instructions dated 10.05.2022 have been framed to regulate posting and redeployment 11 Item No. 27 O.A. No. 3335/2023 Court No. VI of personnel by prescribing certain guiding criteria, including consideration of options, seniority and equitable distribution. These instructions are intended to bring about transparency, predictability and uniformity in matters of transfer, thereby ensuring that similarly situated employees are treated alike. 6.3. Even though such instructions may not have the force of statutory rules, it is well established that executive instructions, if consistently followed, create a legitimate framework governing administrative action. In Union of India v. Indo-Afghan Agencies Ltd. AIR 1968 SC 718, (1968) 2 SCR 366, (1968) 2 SCJ 129 in considering the nature of the Import Trade Policy said:
"Granting that it is executive in character, this Court has held that Courts have the power in appropriate cases to compel performance of the obligations imposed by the Schemes upon the departmental authorities."
To say that an administrative order can never confer any right would be too wide a proposition. There are administrative orders which confer rights and impose duties. It is because an administrative order can abridge or take away rights that we have imported the principle SHILPI GUPTA SHILPI GUPTA 2026.03.25 of natural justice of audi alteram partem into this area. A 15:42:54+05'30' very perceptive writer has written:
"Let us take one of Mr Harrison's instances -- a regulation from the British War Office that no recruit shall be enlisted who is not five feet six inches high. Suppose a recruiting officer musters in a man who is five feet five inches only in height, and pays him the 12 Item No. 27 O.A. No. 3335/2023 Court No. VI King's shilling; afterwards the officer is sued by the Government for being short in his accounts; among other items he claims to be allowed the shilling paid to the undersized recruit. The Court has to consider and apply this regulation and, whatever its effect may be, that effect will be given to it by the Court exactly as effect will be given to a statute providing that murderers shall be hanged, or that last wills must have two witnesses."
(John Chipman Gray on "The Nature and Sources of the Law").
6.4. From the material placed on record, it is not evident that the said policy has been uniformly applied while effecting the impugned transfers. In particular, there is no clear indication that the options of the applicants were duly sought and considered or that the criteria have been applied consistently across all similarly situated employees. The absence of a demonstrable and transparent process in applying the policy raises serious concerns regarding the fairness of the decision-making process.
6.5. In Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held:
"7. Now, the question immediately arises as to what is the requirement of Article 14 : what is the content and reach of the great equalising principle enunciated in this article? There can be no doubt that it is a founding faith of the Constitution. It is indeed the pillar on which rests securely the foundation of our democratic republic. And, therefore, it must not be subjected to a narrow, pedantic or lexicographic approach. No attempt should be made SHILPI GUPTA to truncate its all-embracing scope and meaning, for to SHILPI GUPTA 2026.03.25 15:42:54+05'30' do so would be to violate its activist magnitude. Equality is a dynamic concept with many aspects and dimensions and it cannot be imprisoned within traditional and doctrinaire limits. We must reiterate here what was pointed out by the majority in E.P Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1974) 4 SCC 3, (1974) 2 SCR 348 namely, that "from a positivistic point of view, equality is antithetic to arbitrariness. In fact equality and arbitrariness are sworn enemies; one belongs to the rule 13 Item No. 27 O.A. No. 3335/2023 Court No. VI of law in a republic, while the other, to the whim and caprice of an absolute monarch. Where an act is arbitrary, it is implicit in it that it is unequal both according to political logic and constitutional law and is therefore violative of Article 14". Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness in State action and ensures fairness and equality of treatment. The principle of reasonableness, which legally as well as philosophically, is an essential element of equality or non-arbitrariness pervades Article 14 like a brooding omnipresence..."
The import of this principle is that any administrative action, even if within the domain of discretion, must be fair, just and reasonable and cannot be arbitrary in its application.
6.6. Further, it is no more res integra that once a benefit or standard is extended to a class of persons, similarly situated persons cannot be denied the same without valid justification. The ratio is that uniformity in application of policy is a constitutional requirement flowing from Article 14.
6.7. Non-adherence to a declared policy, without cogent justification, renders the decision-making process susceptible to challenge. Where a policy is applied selectively or inconsistently, it ceases to be a guiding norm and instead becomes an instrument of arbitrary exercise of power.
SHILPI GUPTA SHILPI GUPTA 2026.03.25 15:42:54+05'30' 6.8. Thus, the legal position that emerges is that while the authority may have discretion in matters of transfer, such discretion must operate within the confines of the governing policy and must be exercised in a uniform, 14 Item No. 27 O.A. No. 3335/2023 Court No. VI transparent and non-discriminatory manner. Any deviation from the prescribed policy, without rational basis, would vitiate the action and invite judicial interference.
Issue No. (iii): Arbitrariness and Discrimination
7. The essence of equality lies in ensuring that similarly situated persons are treated alike. Equality is a dynamic concept with many facets, and it cannot be confined to a formal or pedantic approach. Any departure from uniformity, without a rational and intelligible basis, would amount to arbitrariness, which is antithetical to the very notion of equality.
7.1. It is well settled that arbitrariness and equality are sworn enemies; where an action is arbitrary, it necessarily results in inequality. State action must, therefore, be informed by reason and guided by discernible principles. The absence of such guiding criteria renders the exercise of power vulnerable, as it ceases to be structured and instead assumes the character of unguided discretion.
SHILPI GUPTA 7.2. In the present case, the applicants have specifically SHILPI GUPTA 2026.03.25 15:42:54+05'30' contended that while they have been transferred, other similarly placed employees have been retained. The respondents have not placed sufficient material to demonstrate that such differential treatment is founded 15 Item No. 27 O.A. No. 3335/2023 Court No. VI upon any objective, rational or uniformly applied criterion. Mere assertion of administrative exigency, in the absence of a transparent and consistent application of standards, does not satisfy the requirement of fairness.
7.3. The guarantee of equality is not merely against discriminatory classification but extends to protection against arbitrary exercise of power. Even in matters where discretion is vested in the authority, such discretion must be exercised on sound principles and not in an unstructured or selective manner. If the decision- making process does not disclose the basis on which differentiation has been made, or if such basis appears to vary from case to case without justification, the action cannot be sustained.
7.4. The absence of a clear, consistent and transparent basis for such differentiation lends support to the grievance of the applicants that the impugned action suffers from arbitrariness. Equality of treatment requires not only that like cases be treated alike, but also that the SHILPI GUPTA process leading to such treatment be fair, reasonable SHILPI GUPTA 2026.03.25 15:42:54+05'30' and non-discriminatory.
7.5. Administrative discretion, howsoever wide, is not absolute. It must operate within the confines of reasonableness and must be exercised in a manner that 16 Item No. 27 O.A. No. 3335/2023 Court No. VI does not result in unequal treatment of equals or give rise to an impression of selectivity. Where discretion is exercised without adherence to uniform standards, it degenerates into arbitrariness.
7.6. In such circumstances, where the action does not disclose a rational nexus with any consistently applied criterion and results in differential treatment of similarly situated employees, it cannot withstand scrutiny on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Issue No. (iv): Relief
8. In view of the findings recorded hereinabove, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that although the respondents possess the authority to effect transfers in administrative interest, the exercise of such power in the present case does not reflect adherence to the governing policy or uniform application of criteria. 8.1. At the same time, this Tribunal is conscious of the limitations of judicial review and does not deem it appropriate to substitute its own decision in place of that of the competent authority.
SHILPI GUPTA 8.2. The ends of justice would, therefore, be met by SHILPI GUPTA 2026.03.25 15:42:54+05'30' directing reconsideration of the matter in a fair, transparent and policy-compliant manner. 8.3. Accordingly, the impugned transfer/redeployment orders dated 27.05.2023, insofar as they pertain to the 17 Item No. 27 O.A. No. 3335/2023 Court No. VI applicants herein, are hereby set aside, with the following directions:-
a) The matter is remitted back to the respondents to undertake a fresh exercise of posting/redeployment strictly in accordance with Record Office Instructions dated 10.05.2022.
b) While undertaking the aforesaid exercise, the respondents shall ensure due consideration of:
(i) the choice/options of the applicants,
(ii) their inter se seniority,
(iii) parity with similarly situated employees, and
(iv) availability of vacancies, including, as far as practicable, within a reasonable distance from the present place of posting.
c) The respondents shall complete the aforesaid exercise by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
d) Till such time, status quo as on date shall be maintained with respect to the posting of the applicants.
SHILPI GUPTA 8.4. It is made clear that this Tribunal has not expressed SHILPI GUPTA 2026.03.25 15:42:54+05'30' any opinion on the ultimate merits of the individual postings and the respondents shall be at liberty to take an appropriate decision in accordance with law. 18 Item No. 27 O.A. No. 3335/2023 Court No. VI
9. The Original Application stands allowed in the above terms. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. No order as to costs.
(Rajveer Singh Verma) Member (J) /SG/ SHILPI GUPTA SHILPI GUPTA 2026.03.25 15:42:54+05'30'