Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Haranath Bhattacharya vs Ministry Of Statistics & Programme ... on 21 November, 2025
1
Item No. 71 O.A. No. 2341/2025
Court No. IV
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No. 2341/2025
This the 21st day of November, 2025
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S Khati, Member (A)
Haranath Bhattacharya,
Aged 55 Years,
S/o Late Shri Biswanath Bhattacharya,
Senior Statistical Officer,
Directorate General of Mines Safety,
Ministry of Labour and Employment,
Hirapur, Dhanbad-82600
District: Purba Burdwan,
Group 'B'
Currently residing at:
Qr. No. 23, New Type-II,
DGMS Staff Colony,
Hirapur, Dhanbad-82600
...Applicant
(By Advocate(s): Mr. Tushar Ranjan Mohanty)
Versus
1. UNION OF INDIA
Through The Secretary,
Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation,
Khurshid Lal Bhawan,
Janpath, New Delhi-11000l.
2. Director (Special Duty),
Directorate General of Mines Safety,
Ministry of Labour and Employment,
Hirapur, Dhanbad-826001
...Respondents
(By Advocate(s): Mr. Y P Singh)
2
Item No. 71 O.A. No. 2341/2025
Court No. IV
ORDER (ORAL)
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) The present O.A. has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking following reliefs:-
"8.1. to allow the present Application;
8.2. to quash and set aside the transfer of the Applicant from Dhanbad to Chennai vide impugned Order dated 04.06.2026 (Annexure: A-I);
8.3. to quash and set aside the relieving of the Applicant from Dhanbad to join at Chennai, if issued during the time being;
8.4. to direct Respondent No. 1 to consider posting the Applicant to Kolkata or any nearby place for the next three years at least in view of the present family circumstances of the Applicant;
8.5. to issue any such and further orders/directions this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case; and 8.6. to allow exemplary cost of the Application to the Applicant."
2. Highlighting the facts of the present case, learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the matter culminates from an impugned order dated 04.06.2025, which reads as under:-
"In pursuance of Hon'ble CAT, Kolkata's Judgement Order dated 16.01.2025 in O.A. No.987 of 2021 and as per the recommendations made by Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) in its meeting held on 31.03.2015 which was further reviewed in Review DPC held on 14.05.2018, the Competent Authority has approved the promotion of Sh. Haranath Bhattacharya (E. Code-4078), Junior Statistical Officer (Group-B: Non- Gazetted) (Level 6 in 7th CPC Pay Matrix & erstwhile Grade Pay of Rs.4200 in Pay Band-2: Rs.9300-34800) of Subordinate Statistical Service (SSS), to the post of 3 Item No. 71 O.A. No. 2341/2025 Court No. IV Senior Statistical Officer [Group-B; Gazetted) (Level 7 in 7th CPC Pay Matrix & erstwhile Grade Pay of Rs.4600 in Pay Band-2: Rs.9300-34800) notionally w.e.f. 01.01.2013 (i.e. the date of promotion of his immediate junior Sh. Ashish Kundu (E. Code-4079) and on actual basis w.e.f. the date of assumption of charge as Senior Statistical Officer."
3. The premises on which the challenge is laid that before issuing the promotion order and transferring the applicant herein to Chennai no preferences have been called for as contemplated as per the Rule position in a prescribed format (Annexure-A-22)., wherein option for 5 preferences for posting on promotion are called for from the official on promotion to the post of Senior Statistical Officer.
4. Other contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that though applicant has been relieved to the promotional post, he could not join to the same as no TTA allowance has been issued.
5. He also states that due to the medical ailment of daughter of the applicant, for which the learned counsel for the applicant has produced a communication dated 19.11.2025, issued by Nation Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences, wherein it has been mentioned that Miss Sohana Bhattacharya daughter of Shri Haranath Bhattacharya is under inpatient care in their hospital from 22.10.2025. 4 Item No. 71 O.A. No. 2341/2025 Court No. IV
6. In support of his claim, he relies upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in W.P. No. 28838 of 2024 in the matter of All India Union Bank and Officer Vs. Union Bank of India and Ors., relevant extract from which reads as under:-
"89. Although the Court cannot dictate the specific nature of a transfer policy, it is evident from the illustrations provided by the petitioners that the current policy has failed. It has not addressed the grievances of the affected individuals, nor has it considered the impact on their family members. In fact the representations submitted indicate that the employees' work performance has also been negatively affected. Fostering an environment of discontent among officers and staff in any workplace is not conducive to a healthy working atmosphere. The respondents must seriously examine this issue."
6.1. He highlights Annexure-A/23, and states that wife of the applicant is working under the Government of West Bengal in Kolkata. He states that the applicant is ready and willing to go to Kolkata, as his wife is already working in Kolkata and on the spouse ground as well he is entitled to be posted in West Bengal. He informs that the applicant has never been posted in Kolkata.
6.2. He relies upon a recent decision rendered by this Tribunal in identical situation on 31.10.2025 in O.A. No. 2660/2025 titled as Gaya Prasad Vs. Union of India and Ors.
5Item No. 71 O.A. No. 2341/2025 Court No. IV 6.3. He would ready to exercise his options in terms of the Rule position.
7. Opposing the grant of relief, the learned counsel for the respondents would rely upon the averments contained in the counter affidavit. He raises the preliminary objections stating that the transfer of the applicant was made on his promotion, who belongs to Subordinate Statistical Service (SSS) and the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, which is a Group "B" Service with all India transfer liability in terms of Rule 16 of SSS Recruitment Rules dated 31.05.2013. The applicant is governed vide Revised Transfer and Placement Policy dated 21.08.2024, para 1.4 of the same reads as under:-
"1.4 The Subordinate Statistical Service (SSS), being a service with all-India transfer liability, the SSS Officers can be transferred to any station as per the administrative and functional requirement....."
7.1. The case of the applicant has been recommended by a designated Transfer and Placement Committee, comprising of senior officers after due deliberation was taken and has been posted to NSO, FOD, RO, Chennai. Before his promotion the applicant was posted in Dhanbad.
7.2. Learned counsel for the respondents states that the applicant had joined the MoSPI as Junior 6 Item No. 71 O.A. No. 2341/2025 Court No. IV Statistical Officer on 30.05.1997 at Maida, West Bengal and has been posted in West Bengal at MaIda, Howrah and Berhampur upto 30.04.2024 and has been serving at DGMS, Dhanbad (Jharkhand) from 06.05.2024. It is further submitted that transfer of a Government servant appointed to a particular cadre of transferable posts from one place to other is an incident of service. Transfer from one place to other is generally a condition of service and the employee has no choice in the matter. Transfer from one place to other is necessary in public interest and for maintaining efficiency in the Public Administration. Further, there is no dispute that the applicant is holding a transferable post and under the conditions of service applicable to him he is liable to be posted at any place within India and the applicant has no legal or statutory right to insist for being posted at one particular place. 7.3. It is also highlighted by the learned counsel for the respondents that there is no vacant seat of Senior Statistical Officer at DGMS, Dhanbad. 7.4. He further draws attention that the respondents have vehemently denied the fact that the applicant, was under departmental disciplinary proceedings, including a major penalty charge sheet in 2015, and 7 Item No. 71 O.A. No. 2341/2025 Court No. IV was dismissed from service in 2019 and subsequently he was reinstated pursuant to receipt of advice of UPSC and direction of Hon'ble CAT, Kolkata has contended that the current transfer is mala fide, which is clearly based on surmises and conjectures of the applicant and the O.A. contains no demonstrable malafide. In this regard, it is respectfully reiterated that the present transfer on promotion has no bearing on these events and has been done purely in view of functional and operational exigencies after due approval of Competent Authority on the recommendation of the Transfer Placement Committee and in concurrence with Transfer and Policy Order dated 21.08.2024.
7.5. He further states that the applicant has shown disrespect to the established administrative hierarchy, to the extent of instruction of Government of India and Section 20 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Even though he has preferred a representation directly to Registry without following the proper channel, thereafter filed the instant application without exhausted alternative remedy available. 7.6. It has been further averred that his representation has been considered by the Competent 8 Item No. 71 O.A. No. 2341/2025 Court No. IV Authority and after due deliberation and the request of the applicant has not been acceded and disposed of vide Order dated 22.07.2025, which has not been challenged till date and has canceled the said facts by this Tribunal. The said order of dismissal is reproduced here in below:-
"Subject: Posting on promotion of SSS Officers-decision on request for reconsideration of place of posting vide order dated 04.06.2025 i.r.o. Sh. Haranath Bhattacharya [E.Code 4078]- regarding.
The undersigned is directed to refer to your request dated 09.06.2025 against this Ministry's Order dated 04.06.2025 for reconsideration of place of posting on promotion as SSO and to inform that the request has been considered by the Competent Authority and same has not been acceded to. The request dated 09.06.2025 stands disposed of accordingly.
2. This issues with the approval of the Competent Authority."
7.7. Learned counsel for the respondents on instructions states that insofar as the medical ailment of his daughter is concerned that is not within the knowledge of the respondents and it is a subsequent development altogether.
8. In rejoinder to the arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the respondents, learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the O.M. dated 22.07.2025 (supra), is a non-speaking order in fact it is leading to a same situation as the order of promotion was passed.
9Item No. 71 O.A. No. 2341/2025 Court No. IV 8.1. He also draws reference to para 1.5 and 6 of Transfer and Placement Policy for officers of the Subordinate Statistical Services of Ministry of Statistics & Programme Implementation, which read as under:-
"1.5 In so-far as the transfer of officers of officers cadre belonging to the following categories is concerned, it would be done in accordance with the guidelines issued by DoPT vide their O.M. dated 16.07.2015, 02.11.2022. and 24.11.2022 and other extant instructions issued time to time:-
i. Spouse ground, i.e" posting of husband and wife at the same station;
ii. Posting of differently-abled candidates and parents of mentally retarded children.
iii. The officer is due for superannuation within two years.
iv. The officer is due for superannuation within six months on promotion;
v. Posting of Officers on return from Deputation/Long Leave/Long Term Training;
vi. Mutual Transfer/Transfer on request;
vii. Transfer and posting requests from differently-abled officers viii. Unmarried/ Single female officers.
****
6. Notwithstanding anything contained in this policy, with justifications/reasons to be recorded in writing, the Competent Authority may relax any provision(s) of this policy."
9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused of the records of the case.
10. Going through the backdrop of the case as highlighted above, we are not repeating the factual matrix of the case for the sake of brevity to avoid any 10 Item No. 71 O.A. No. 2341/2025 Court No. IV repetition. It is a matter of record that even though impugned order has been passed on 22.07.2025, on his representation, rejecting his candidature the same appears to be a non-reasoned and non-speaking order.
11. We also take notice of the fact that even otherwise admittedly no TTA allowance has been issued and therefore question of joining of the applicant at this stage would not have arisen, for which it is noted that an application for seeking TTA allowance has already been moved on 05.06.2025.
12. Though, it has been vehemently contested by the learned counsel for the respondents that no application has been received or records would reveal that on05.06.2025, such request was made for releasing of TTA allowance.
13. In this context, learned counsel for the applicant would place reliance on the various decision rendered by this Tribunal in (Annexure-A-33) O.A. No. 2059/2011 decided on 14.06.2011, in the matter of Pravin Srivastava Vs. Union of India & Ors., in (Annexure-A-34) O.A. No. 294/2015 decided on 12.02.2015, in the matter of Naresh Kumar Sharma Vs. Union of India & Ors. and also to the decision rendered in (Annexure-A-35) O.A. No. 4721/2014 11 Item No. 71 O.A. No. 2341/2025 Court No. IV decided on 09.10.2015 in the matter of Tushar Ranjan Mohanty Vs. Union of India & Ors.
14. Another aspect of the matter is to be seen is with regard to whether the respondents are liable to gave an option in terms of the Rule provisions as stated hereinabove at the time of promotion. A format as per the Rule position has been produced and has been relied upon by the respondents. Similar issue and contentions were came up for hearing in O.A. No. 2660/2025 decided on 31.10.2025 in the matter of Gaya Prasad Vs. Union of India & Ors. where this Tribunal analyzing the situation, has observed as under:-
"8.4 We clarify that a transfer under the annual transfer policy cannot be equated with a transfer on promotion. The parameters governing these two categories are distinct and based on different considerations.
8.5 The applicant's case is governed by the Office Memorandum dated 17.02.2024, which stipulates as under:
"5.5. Transfer and Postings on Promotion 5.5.1. Officers on promotion within group 'A' will normally be transferred out of the station, except where they have not completed a minimum of 2 years at that station, subject to the administrative requirements. Grant of NFSG/NFU shall not be treated as promotion for this purpose.
5.5.2. Officers, on promotion from Group-B to Group-A, shall be transferred out of the station where they were working at the time of promotion, if the balance tenure at the station is less than three years.
5.5.3. If the officer is due for superannuation within six months, he/she will be retained at the same station against an existing vacancy of the 12 Item No. 71 O.A. No. 2341/2025 Court No. IV promotional post at that station, subject to administrative requirements."
8.6 There is nothing on record to indicate that the O.M. dated 02.07.2015 has been superseded by any subsequent Office Memorandum. The relevant extracts of Clause 9 of the O.M. dated 02.07.2015 read as follows:
"(i) Promotion is made against available vacancies. Preferences for posting on promotion, if allowed, shall be accommodated as far as possible within the available vacancies and in the order of seniority.
(ii) The list of officers who are in the approved panel for promotion and are to be promoted in the next order shall be notified on the website of this Department along with the vacancy position.
Officers concerned may furnish three preferences for posting within the available vacancies within seven (7) days of the notification of vacancies.
(iii) Situations may arise where certain vacancies are required to be filled immediately due to functional needs. In such cases, it may not be possible to wait for the next promotion order. Accordingly, such vacancies shall be filled by the next officer in the approved promotion panel, and in such cases, the question of seeking preferences will not arise.
(iv) Posting on promotion/transfer shall be recommended by the Placement Committee based on functional requirements, and its recommendations shall be approved by the Competent Authority."
8.7 From a plain reading of sub-clauses (i) and (ii) of Clause 9, it is evident and undisputed that the applicant, being at Serial No. 1 in the promotion list, ought to have been afforded an opportunity to indicate three preferences for posting. The failure to exercise such options cannot be attributed to the applicant, as a promotion is always contingent upon the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC), and an officer cannot be expected to anticipate such promotion in advance. 8.8 Undoubtedly, the Placement Committee is empowered to assess postings in accordance with functional requirements. However, it is equally incumbent upon the Committee to maintain a balance between administrative exigencies and the individual's right to exercise posting preferences, so as to ensure a fair, transparent, and harmonious working environment."
13Item No. 71 O.A. No. 2341/2025 Court No. IV Accordingly appropriate directions were issued in this regard.
15. We do not dispute the preposition that the transfer is a policy in service, however, facts remains in peculiar facts and circumstances the promotion order has to be effected based on the reasonableness as well as to the extent of policy.
16. No doubt that the applicant has been working in Hawrah at the relevant point of time, however, the present issue is only in relation to giving of preferences and more particularly in peculiar facts and circumstances which has arisen:-
1. On the ground of illness of the daughter of the applicant who is in undergoing treatment in Delhi.
2. On the spouse ground to the extent of the policy already highlighted hereinabove, as the wife of the applicant is working under West Bengal Government.
17. In view of the above, the impugned orders dated 04.06.2025 and 22.07.2025, which are cryptic and non-speaking order cannot be defeated due to 14 Item No. 71 O.A. No. 2341/2025 Court No. IV technicality not to challenge the same and therefore the same are accordingly quashed and set aside.
18. The respondents authority are directed to ought to examine the case of the applicant in a holistic manner based on the aforesaid policy by offering a choice of 5 preferences of place of positing in terms of Rules position and as per the vacancy position. The choices be exercised within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order. Upon receipt of the preferences reasoned speaking order be passed within 15 days. Needless to say that the consequential reliefs, if any, shall also be accorded to the applicant within 45 days thereafter.
19. The present Original Application is, accordingly, disposed of. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Dr. Anand S Khati) (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)
/SG/