Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
G Srinivasa Naik vs South Central Railway on 24 July, 2025
OA.No.021/0339/2025
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH, HYDERABAD
OA.No.021/0339/2025
ORDER RESERVED ON : 23.07.2025
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 24.07.2025
CORAM:
HON'BLE MRS. SHALINI MISRA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Between:
G. Srinivasa Naik s/o Late Ramulu, aged about 55 years,
Occupation: Works Personnel Officer, (WPO),
Lalaguda Work Shop, Lalaguda, Secunderabad,
(Group B).r/o Gowri Enclave, Satyanarayana Colony,
Nagaram, Malkajgiri Medchal Dist., 500 083.
Cell No. 9440359476
Mail ID [email protected] ...Applicant
(By Advocate Mr.K.Siva Reddy)
AND
Union of India rep by
1. The General Manager, South Central Railway.
Rail Nilayam. Secunderabad..
2. The Principal Chief Personnel Officer,
South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad.
3. N. Santhosh Kumar Reddy s/o not known,
Aged about 30 years, Occupation: APO General,
South Central Railway, Secunderabad.
....Respondents
(By Advocate Mr.M.Venkata Swamy, Sr.PC for CG)
Digitally signed by D SATYANARYANA
DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=
D SATYANARYANA
Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone=
e9139f685446ba88b1951014524a4686cad5619e209d584134900f3759545854, SERIALNUMBER=
2185a73b6158e7c1d87ad8c68c3773e034c1e5d18191c31d7a3f9699631571dc, [email protected], CN=D SATYANARYANA
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2025.07.24 17:27:57-07'00'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0
P a g e | 1 of 32
OA.No.021/0339/2025
ORDER
PER HON'BLE MRS. SHALINI MISRA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER The applicant has filed this OA, seeking the following relief:
"i) To call for records pertaining to the transfer order passed by the Respondent No.2 in Office Order No. SCR/P-HQ/297/GAZ/P9/2025 DT. 16.4.2025 wherein the applicant was transferred from Secunderabad to Tirupati, about 600 KMs from the present place to accommodate the respondent No.3 who was promoted and accommodated in the very place and declare the same is arbitrary, illegal, violative of Railway Board Instructions, and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and set aside the same; and
ii) Consequently, direct the respondents to allow the applicant to work as WPO, Carriage Workshop, Lallaguda, and to pass such other and further order or orders as this Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
2. The brief facts of the case, according to the applicant are that he belonged to ST caste. He was initially appointed as Junior Clerk on 9.5.1990 in SC and ST vacancies by way of direct recruitment through RRB, and was promoted to the posts of Sr. Clerk, Head Clerk, OS, and Chief OS. While working as such, he participated in the selection to the post of Assistant Personnel Officer (APO), and got selected to post of the APO in the year 2012, and posted to work in Vijayawada Division. He was further promoted to the post of DPO in the year 2016, and was posted in Secunderabad Division, in the year 2016. He was again posted to work as Secretary to CPO in the year 2019, and again was transferred to Bills Section as SPO in the year 2020, and he was on sick leave due to attack of COVID for 2021 and 2022. After recovery from COVID, he was posted on 07.11.2023 to work as Secretary to CPO. He was transferred to the post of WPO, Lallaguda, Secunderabad, by order dated 15.10.2024. He is discharging his duties up to the satisfaction of the higher-ups and is having an unblemished Digitally signed by D SATYANARYANA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S= D SATYANARYANA Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= e9139f685446ba88b1951014524a4686cad5619e209d584134900f3759545854, SERIALNUMBER= 2185a73b6158e7c1d87ad8c68c3773e034c1e5d18191c31d7a3f9699631571dc, [email protected], CN=D SATYANARYANA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.07.24 17:27:57-07'00' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 P a g e | 2 of 32 OA.No.021/0339/2025 record of service. Though he was absorbed in medical department after his medically decategorized, but, he was transferred to personnel department and the same is contrary to the instructions.
3. The applicant has submitted that due to severe attack of COVID, he is having lot of medical problems and due to high medication during COVID, his left kidney is affected with Anchology problem and underwent surgery with the help of Railway Medical authorities during the year 2023, and still under medication. Further, he is suffering with Cardiac ailment, and has to visit the hospital frequently to take treatment. Due to COVID, he has also lost his mother. Even though he is having lot of health problems, without any demur, he has accepted the frequent transfers. He was transferred even without completion of tenure of 4 years on earlier occasions. The respondent No.2 transferred him from Lallaguda Workshop to Carriage Repair Shop. Tirupati, by impugned transfer order dated 16.04.2025, in order to accommodate the Respondent No.3 who was working as APO in Secunderabad, and promoted and posted in the same place.
4. The applicant has further submitted that he has reliably learnt that the transfer was affected only to accommodate the Respondent No.3. Normally, if an employee is promoted, he will be given the posting in other place from where he was earlier worked, and the same is being followed not only in Railway, but also in other organizations. The said normal procedure can be deviated with special reasons. In the instant case, the respondent No.2 has violated all the norms, and in order to accommodate the respondent No.3, the Digitally signed by D SATYANARYANA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S= D SATYANARYANA Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= e9139f685446ba88b1951014524a4686cad5619e209d584134900f3759545854, SERIALNUMBER= 2185a73b6158e7c1d87ad8c68c3773e034c1e5d18191c31d7a3f9699631571dc, [email protected], CN=D SATYANARYANA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.07.24 17:27:57-07'00' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 P a g e | 3 of 32 OA.No.021/0339/2025 transfer order was passed. The respondent No. 2, though promoted the respondent No.3, to the post of Sr. Scale Officer, and he can be accommodated in vacant post, which was transferred to Tirupati. Since, the post is transferred to Tirupati, the respondent No.2, with a malafide intention, transferred him. The respondent No.2, ought to have considered his health conditions and also he had not completed the tenure of 4 years in the post. In fact, he worked only months in the post, and the action of the respondent No.2 is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to law. Though the order says that the transfer is on administrative grounds, and in fact, it is incorrect, and is colourable exercise of power, and the action of the respondent No.2 is malice in law. The transfer order says that the post was transferred temporarily, but not mentioned period till the post is continued in Tirupati. The transfer order reveals that the respondent No.3 is given special treatment to post him in the same place. One Mr. Anirudh was promoted and posted from Nanded, where he was earlier working, to Wagon Work Shop, Guntupalli, and the same is normal practice that is being followed in Railway. But, in the case of the respondent No.3, the respondent No.2, for the reasons best known to him, has posted on promotion in the same place i.e. Secunderabad, by deviating the normal practice. The Railway Board, which is a policy making body, has issued the transfer policy in RBV 02/2009 dt. 18.2.2009 which says that -
'2. The matter has been reconsidered by the full Board and it has now been decided that the tenure of officials (both GOs and NGOs) in sensitive posts should continue to be 4 years as per the extant policy in the Railways'.
As per the policy of the Railway Board, it is mandatory to continue an employee for years in the post. He had completed only 4 months, and had not Digitally signed by D SATYANARYANA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S= D SATYANARYANA Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= e9139f685446ba88b1951014524a4686cad5619e209d584134900f3759545854, SERIALNUMBER= 2185a73b6158e7c1d87ad8c68c3773e034c1e5d18191c31d7a3f9699631571dc, [email protected], CN=D SATYANARYANA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.07.24 17:27:57-07'00' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 P a g e | 4 of 32 OA.No.021/0339/2025 completed the tenure. The respondents have retained the employees, who have completed the tenure and who are working in the same place, for more than 4 years. The transfer order perse, against the transfer policy of the respondents 1 to 2, and when the transfer policy is violated, the Courts can interfere with the transfer order. No reasons were given by the respondent No.2 in the transfer order for violating the transfer policy and routinely mentioned as administrative grounds.
5. The applicant has further submitted that the Railway Board has also issued instructions in RBE 336/85 dt. 24.12.1985, wherein it was specifically instructed its subordinates that it was desirable that employees belonging to SC/ST, should be transferred very rarely and for very strong reasons. Also further instructed that the SC/ST should be posted nearer to native town. He belonged to ST category, and the respondents have not shown any strong reasons to transfer him, as he has not completed the tenure period as per the transfer policy. The respondents have also transferred him about 600 Kms away from home town. The Railway Board, in its letter dated 09.06.2018, reiterated the same. He is having health problems and has to take continuous treatment for his ailments, and the same would be denied, if he is transferred to the place where no medical facilities are available. As on today, he has not handed over the charge and is discharging the duties.
6. The applicant has contended that the Respondent No.2 is not justified to transfer him before completion of tenure and in order to accommodate the respondent No.3 and the Hon'ble Apex Court in EP Royappa V State of Tamilnadu, (AIR 1974 SC 555), has held that "the Courts can interfere, if the Digitally signed by D SATYANARYANA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S= D SATYANARYANA Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= e9139f685446ba88b1951014524a4686cad5619e209d584134900f3759545854, SERIALNUMBER= 2185a73b6158e7c1d87ad8c68c3773e034c1e5d18191c31d7a3f9699631571dc, [email protected], CN=D SATYANARYANA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.07.24 17:27:57-07'00' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 P a g e | 5 of 32 OA.No.021/0339/2025 transfer is affected not on administrative grounds, but to accommodate some other employee". He had made representations dated 17.4.2025 to the respondents 1 and 2, which are pending. Hence, he has filed the present OA, seeking the above relief.
7. The respondents 1 and 2 have contested the OA, by filing a reply statement. They have submitted that the applicant Sri G. Srinivasa Naik, is a Group 'B Personnel Officer, presently working as Workshop Personnel Officer (WPO) at Carriage Workshop, Lallaguda. He is working at Headquarters area (i.e. Secunderabad, Rail Nilayam and Lallaguda) since 09.09.2016 till date, i.e., for almost 8 years 7 months. The respondent-administration, vide Office Order No.77/Gaz./2025, dated 16.04.2025, transferred the applicant to Tirupati, in the capacity of WPO, on administrative grounds. Without carrying out the transfer orders, the applicant has approached this Tribunal against the said office order and obtained Status Quo order on 24-04-2025.
8. The respondents have further submitted that the applicant belongs to "ST" community, and was initially appointed as Junior Clerk through RRB/SC on 09.05.1990 in Personnel Department, Rail Nilayam. He continued to progress in Non-gazetted service in Personnel Department, Rail Nilayam, till 2012. He has volunteered for the post of Assistant Personal Officer, and was promoted to the Group 'B' post, and initially posted as APO/Bills/HQ in Rail Nilayam from 17.10.2012 to 02.04.2015, and subsequently, he was posted to Vijayawada Division, from 06.04.2015 to 08.09.2016. Digitally signed by D SATYANARYANA
DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S= D SATYANARYANA Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= e9139f685446ba88b1951014524a4686cad5619e209d584134900f3759545854, SERIALNUMBER= 2185a73b6158e7c1d87ad8c68c3773e034c1e5d18191c31d7a3f9699631571dc, [email protected], CN=D SATYANARYANA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.07.24 17:27:57-07'00' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 P a g e | 6 of 32 OA.No.021/0339/2025
9. The respondents have denied the allegation by the applicant in the OA that he was initially posted at Vijayawada division as baseless and untrue, and a blatant attempt to mislead this Tribunal. After working for almost 2 years, 06 months period as APO/Bills/HQ in Rail Nilayam, he was transferred and posted as APO in Vijayawada Division on 06.04.2015. On promotion to the Senior Scale post of DPO, he was transferred and posted as DPO/SC division on 09.09.2016. He has worked in Vijayawada division for a period of only one year and five months. In the year 2019, he was transferred and posted as Secretary to PCPO in the September 2019. The details of all the posts held by the applicant in a Gazetted post are brought out below:
Sl Name of Post Place of working Period of working
No.
From To
1 Assistant Personnel Secunderabad
Officer/Bills/HQ 17.10.12 02.04.15
2 Assistant Personnel Vijayawada
Officer/Engineering 06.04.15 08.09.16
BZA
3 Divisional Secunderabad 09.09.16 10.09.19
Personnel
Officer/SC
4 Secretary to PCPO Secunderabad 11.09.19 02.06.20
5 Senior Personnel Secunderabad 03.06.20 07.11.23
Officer/Bils/HQ
6 Secretary to PCPO Secunderabad 08.11.23 14.11.24
7 Workshop Secunderabad 15.11.24 TILL
Personnel DATE
Officer/Lallaguda
The posts mentioned at Sl nos. 4, 5 & 6 are in the same office, and it is more of change of duty list, rather than a change of office. Also, the post mentioned at Sl. no 3 is right across the road from the HQ office, and the post mentioned at Sl no 7 is less than 2 kms from the HQ office. None of the 'transfers', mentioned by the applicant, have involved any change in residence so as to cause any hardship to the applicant.
Digitally signed by D SATYANARYANA
DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S= D SATYANARYANA Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= e9139f685446ba88b1951014524a4686cad5619e209d584134900f3759545854, SERIALNUMBER= 2185a73b6158e7c1d87ad8c68c3773e034c1e5d18191c31d7a3f9699631571dc, [email protected], CN=D SATYANARYANA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.07.24 17:27:57-07'00' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 P a g e | 7 of 32 OA.No.021/0339/2025
10. The respondents have further submitted that from the above table, it is seen that in the entire Gazetted cadre of applicant service i.e., almost 12 years 06 months, the applicant has not worked for more than 17 months outside the HQ area. Moreover, if the entire service of non-gazetted cadre is also included, the applicant has served only 17 months out of a total of 35 years outside the HQ area, which is less than 5% of his entire career. Further, the respondentks have denied the contention of the applicant that he has been frequently transferred as not acceptable, as he has been continuously working in the same Head Quarter area for almost 09 years without any dislocation. A Government Servant cannot disobey a transfer order by not reporting at the place of posting and then go to a court to ventilate her/his grievances. It is her/his duty to first report for work, where she/he is transferred, and make a representation as to what may be her/his personal problems. Such tendency of not reporting at the place of posting and indulging in litigation needs to be curbed.
11. The respondents have further submitted that the employee, at the time of his/her appointment, has given an oath of allegiance, wherein it was stated that he/she will be willing to work anywhere on the Indian Railways. Further, the Competent Authority can transfer within the jurisdiction of the S.C. Railway Zone on administrative requirements.
12. The respondents have further denied the contention of the applicant in the OA that he was absorbed in medical department after his medical decategorisation, and that he was transferred to personnel department, which is Digitally signed by D SATYANARYANA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S= D SATYANARYANA Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= e9139f685446ba88b1951014524a4686cad5619e209d584134900f3759545854, SERIALNUMBER= 2185a73b6158e7c1d87ad8c68c3773e034c1e5d18191c31d7a3f9699631571dc, [email protected], CN=D SATYANARYANA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.07.24 17:27:57-07'00' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 P a g e | 8 of 32 OA.No.021/0339/2025 contrary to instructions, as absolutely false and baseless. This is nothing, but a frivolous attempt on the applicant's part to malign the administration. The OA needs to be dismissed purely based on this fact as the applicant is trying to mislead this Tribunal. A posting order was issued on 16.04.2025, duly transferring the applicant from Carriage Workshop, Lalaguda to Carriage Repair Shop, Tirupati, and his allegation in the OA is that it was done only to accommodate respondent no. 3 is purely a figment of his imagination.
13. The respondents have further submitted that the applicant has stated that the respondent no 3, while working as APO în Secunderabad Division, has been promoted and posted in the same place, and this has been done violating all norms. While it is a fact that the respondent no.3, while working as APO in Secunderabad Division, has been issued with promotion orders and posted to Carriage Workshop, Lallaguda. As per the applicant's version, if both the places/posts are the same, then the contention of the applicant being frequently transferred, does not hold good, as he has been posted in Secunderabad, since September 2016. All other allegations are purely a figment of the applicant's imagination.
14. The respondents have further contended that the applicant's contention that the period for which the post has been transferred to Tirupati, has not been mentioned, is irrelevant to his transfer as posts can be adjusted within the sanctioned strength of the cadre based on administrative requirements.
However, the post can be transferred temporarily for a period of 1 year at a stretch and the same can be extended based on administrative requirements. It is Digitally signed by D SATYANARYANA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S= D SATYANARYANA Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= e9139f685446ba88b1951014524a4686cad5619e209d584134900f3759545854, SERIALNUMBER= 2185a73b6158e7c1d87ad8c68c3773e034c1e5d18191c31d7a3f9699631571dc, [email protected], CN=D SATYANARYANA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.07.24 17:27:57-07'00' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 P a g e | 9 of 32 OA.No.021/0339/2025 a common practice to temporarily transfer posts from one place to the other based on administrative exigencies and the period for which such a post is transferred is never mentioned in the transfer orders. The applicant himself has issued many transfer orders previously temporarily transferring posts from one place to the other without mentioning the duration or period for which the said post has been transferred. Occupying a responsible position in the middle level administration, he should be aware of the fact that transfer orders never mention the period for which such a post is transferred as he himself has issued such similar orders in the past.
15. The respondents have further denied the applicant's contention that respondent No.3 (Sri N Santosh Kumar Reddy), has been given special treatment in his posting to Workshop, Lallaguda, as far away from the truth, and without any documentary evidence or basis and is purely a figment of his imagination. The burden of proof is purely on the applicant to prove his allegation by way of submitting any documentary evidence. As per the Railway dated 18.02.2009, the maximum tenure of the officials (Gazetted & Board's instructions dated 18.02.2009, issued under letter No. 2008/V-1/CVC/14 Non-
Gazetted) in sensitive posts is 04 years, but there is no mention with regard to the minimum tenure for the transfer of the officers. However, as per the comprehensive transfer policy issued by Railway Board, which has been re-
circulated as Serial Circular no 87/2015, normally, minimum tenure on a particular post, at a time, will be 2 years, and a maximum tenure will be 5 years.
For sensitive posts, maximum tenure will be 4 years. Minimum tenure will not be applicable for Junior Scale/Senior Scale of Group 'A' officer. However, in Digitally signed by D SATYANARYANA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S= D SATYANARYANA Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= e9139f685446ba88b1951014524a4686cad5619e209d584134900f3759545854, SERIALNUMBER= 2185a73b6158e7c1d87ad8c68c3773e034c1e5d18191c31d7a3f9699631571dc, [email protected], CN=D SATYANARYANA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.07.24 17:27:57-07'00' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 P a g e | 10 of 32 OA.No.021/0339/2025 administrative exigencies, relaxation may be granted by cadre controlling officer.' As can be seen, the concept of Minimum tenure is not applicable to Sr Scale Officers. Moreover, any person can be transferred even before completion of any tenure based on administrative exigencies.
16. The respondents have further denied the applicant's plea that he is suffering with post COVID health complications and availing the treatment at Hyderabad, and if the transfer order to Carriage Repair Shop, Tirupati, is affected, there won't be any medical facilities available at Tirupati. as a figment of his imagination and far away from the truth, as Tirupati, is the second largest city in the Rayalaseema region of Andhra Pradesh, and there are major hospitals and other medical facilities available at Tirupati. Additionally, a Railway Health Unit, is specifically attached to including an earmarked Railway Health Unit, which is a Railway Sub-Divisional Hospital, attached to the Carriage Repair Shop, Tirupati.
17. The respondents have further contended that the reliance made by the applicant on the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of EP Royappa Vs State of Tamil Nadu, wherein it was held that "Courts can interfere, if the transfer is affected not on administrative grounds, but to accommodate some other employee", is not applicable to the case of the applicant as in the present case, the transfer orders issued are purely on administrative grounds and the allegations made by applicant are purely a figment of the applicant's imagination without any evidence or basis. Moreover, the applicant has stated Digitally signed by D SATYANARYANA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S= D SATYANARYANA Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= e9139f685446ba88b1951014524a4686cad5619e209d584134900f3759545854, SERIALNUMBER= 2185a73b6158e7c1d87ad8c68c3773e034c1e5d18191c31d7a3f9699631571dc, [email protected], CN=D SATYANARYANA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.07.24 17:27:57-07'00' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 P a g e | 11 of 32 OA.No.021/0339/2025 that he has submitted a representation dated 17.04.2025 to respondent No.1 & 2, and the same is pending.
18. The respondents have not disputed the fact that the applicant has submitted his representation on 17.04.2025. It is also not disputed that he had dropped off the representation in the dispatch section in the afternoon session of 17.04.2025, being fully aware that the next couple of days were holidays, ie., 18.04.2025 (Good Friday), 19.04.2025 (Saturday) & 20.04.2025 (Sunday) and there was no scope to examine and dispose his representation. The very act of filing the OA, on 19.04.2023, without giving any opportunity to the administration to even examine and dispose the representation, shows the intention of the applicant to derail the wheels of administration by knocking the doors of this Tribunal. Further, Central Administrative Tribunal Act 1985 Section 20 reads as "Applications not to be admitted unless other remedies exhausted. (1) A Tribunal shall not ordinarily admit an application unless it is satisfied that the applicant had availed of all the remedies available to him under the relevant service rules as to redressal of grievances." The very fact that the applicant has not exhausted the existing channels available to him before filing the OA, is a major ground for dismissal of the OA.
19. The respondents have further relied on the judgment dated 21.02.2006, of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.C.Saxena vs Union of India & others, (2003 (2) MPHT 355), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that -
"A Government servant cannot disobey a transfer order by not reporting at the place of posting and then go to a court to ventilate his grievances. It is his duty to first report for work Digitally signed by D SATYANARYANA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S= D SATYANARYANA Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= e9139f685446ba88b1951014524a4686cad5619e209d584134900f3759545854, SERIALNUMBER= 2185a73b6158e7c1d87ad8c68c3773e034c1e5d18191c31d7a3f9699631571dc, [email protected], CN=D SATYANARYANA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.07.24 17:27:57-07'00' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 P a g e | 12 of 32 OA.No.021/0339/2025 where he is transferred and to make a representation as to what may be his personal problems. This tendency of not reporting at the place of posting and indulging in litigation needs to be curbed."
20. The respondents have further submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of U.P. & Others v. Vs Gobardhanlal, (2004 (11) SCC 402), has elaborately explained when Transfers can be interfered and held that "Transfer is prerogative of the authorities concerned and Court should not normally interfere except when transfer order shown to be vitiated by malafide or in violation of any statutory provision or having passed by an authority not competent to pass such an order".
21. The respondents have further quoted the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of G.S.Puri Vs IOCL, wherein it has been held that-
"(7)It has further been held that the Central Administrative Tribunal whose jurisdiction is akin to that of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution 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.
(8) In this case the respondent was transferred from Shillong to Pauri (U.P.) and his wife was employed in Shillong.
The Central Administrative Tribunal set aside the transfer on the ground that guidelines issued by the Central Government were not followed. This order of the Tribunal was set aside by the Supreme Court reiterating that the order of transfer was not in violation of the statutory provisions even if administrative instructions or guidelines were ignored." (9) In Rajendra Roy Vs. Union of India, (AIR 1993 SC 1236/1993 SCC 148), the petitioner was transferred from New Delhi to Calcutta, again it has been observed that the order of Digitally signed by D SATYANARYANA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S= D SATYANARYANA Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= e9139f685446ba88b1951014524a4686cad5619e209d584134900f3759545854, SERIALNUMBER= 2185a73b6158e7c1d87ad8c68c3773e034c1e5d18191c31d7a3f9699631571dc, [email protected], CN=D SATYANARYANA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.07.24 17:27:57-07'00' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 P a g e | 13 of 32 OA.No.021/0339/2025 transfer often causes a lot of difficulties and dislocation in the family set up of the concerned employees but on that score the order of transfer is not liable to be struck down. It was reiterated that in a transferable post an order of transfer is a normal consequence and personal difficulties are matters for consideration of the department. Unless such order is passed malafide or in violation of the rules of service and guidelines for transfer without any proper justification, the court and the Tribunal should not interfere with the order of transfer. The Central Administrative Tribunal did not interfere. The order of the Tribunal was upheld by the Supreme Court. In State of Madhya Pradesh & Another Vs. S.S. Kourav & Ors. 1995 Lab. & I.C. 1574 (SC) it has been reiterated that the courts or Tribunals are not appellate for to decide on transfers of the employees on administrative grounds. The wheels of administration should be allowed to run smoothly and the Courts or. Tribunals are not expected to interdict the working of the administration system by transferring the officials to proper places. It is for the administration to take appropriate decision and such decisions shall stand unless they are vitiated either by malafides or by extraneous consideration without any factual background foundation."
22. The respondents have, therefore, contended that the present O.A is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed, and prayed this Tribunal to dismiss the OA, as devoid of merits.
23. The applicant has filed rejoinder to the reply statement filed by the respondents. He has contended that the allegation made by the respondents, in regard to his continuous service in Head Quarters for almost 8 years 7 months, is only to mislead this Tribunal, since, as per Transfer policy of Railway Board Lr.No. E(O)III/2014/PL/05, dated 31.08.2015 of (viii) that -
Digitally signed by D SATYANARYANADN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S= D SATYANARYANA Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= e9139f685446ba88b1951014524a4686cad5619e209d584134900f3759545854, SERIALNUMBER= 2185a73b6158e7c1d87ad8c68c3773e034c1e5d18191c31d7a3f9699631571dc, [email protected], CN=D SATYANARYANA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.07.24 17:27:57-07'00' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 P a g e | 14 of 32 OA.No.021/0339/2025 'Total stay at a stretch at a particular station should not be more than 10 years and the total cumulative stay (in broken spells) should not be more than 15 years. Deputation to PSUs and other Ministries will not be counted for this purpose. This will be implemented in a phased manner.' he had worked in several capacities in broken spells of 8 years. 7 months, and as per the transfer policy, he is entitled to stay not more than 15 years. Further, he being the Group 'B' Officer, has neither completed the minimum of 2 years tenure in the present post of WPO/LGDS nor 10/15 years of service in the Head Quarters offices, as indicated by Railway Board, vide Lr.No. E(O)III/2014/PL/05, dated 31.08.2015. Therefore, the respondents are deviating from the above guidelines issued by Railway Board, which has to be followed scrupulously in toto, while ordering transfers in favour of the officers working in the Organization.
24. The applicant has further contended that the posts of Ministerial Cadre in non-gazetted, are unit seniority controlled posts, which do not have the policy of transferring an employee out of Head Quarters area, as they do not come under the policy of online seniority of the Zonal Railways, and hence he had been continued in Head Quarters area in Non-Gazetted cadre. Moreover, this is not relevant to the facts of the present O.A, as the case is pertaining to transfer in Group 'B' service, and the respondents are trying to mislead this Tribunal by mentioning the irrelevant and untrue facts in the reply statement.
25. The applicant has further submitted that as per Railway Board Lr.No.E(O)III-2023/PL/01, dated 21.02.2023, which states that -
Digitally signed by D SATYANARYANADN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S= D SATYANARYANA Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= e9139f685446ba88b1951014524a4686cad5619e209d584134900f3759545854, SERIALNUMBER= 2185a73b6158e7c1d87ad8c68c3773e034c1e5d18191c31d7a3f9699631571dc, [email protected], CN=D SATYANARYANA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.07.24 17:27:57-07'00' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 P a g e | 15 of 32 OA.No.021/0339/2025 'In order to ensure adequate exposure of field working to Direct Recruit Group 'A' Railway Officers, it has been decided that for the initial 10 years of their service, directly recruited Group 'A' Railway Officers shall normally be posted in field and shall not be posted in Head Quarters.' The Respondent No. 3 Sri N. Santosh Kumar Reddy, Direct recruit Group 'A' Officer, should not be posted in Head Quarters for initial 10 years service as per the instructions of Railway Board. The respondents 1 & 2, in order to accommodate Respondent No.3, though he is a Group 'A' officer, for the best reasons known to them, was accommodated in Head Quarters, which is contrary to the instructions issued by the Railway Board. Further, it was inadvertently mentioned in the O.A that the Applicant was absorbed in Medical Department after Medical De-categorization, and was transferred to Personnel Department. As it could be seen from the O.A that I have been recruited through RRB, and posted initially in the Personnel Department and further progressed to Group 'B' Service.
26. The applicant has further submitted he had never disobeyed the order of respondents and carried out the transfer orders without any prejudice as per the requirement of Administration till date. He being suffered with serious ailments and undergoing treatment, requested the administration to post him anywhere in the city of Hyderabad/ Secunderabad, for continuity of treatment. Further, the administration is aware of his Medical impact during the COVID-19 period and present health condition also.
Digitally signed by D SATYANARYANADN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S= D SATYANARYANA Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= e9139f685446ba88b1951014524a4686cad5619e209d584134900f3759545854, SERIALNUMBER= 2185a73b6158e7c1d87ad8c68c3773e034c1e5d18191c31d7a3f9699631571dc, [email protected], CN=D SATYANARYANA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.07.24 17:27:57-07'00' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 P a g e | 16 of 32 OA.No.021/0339/2025
27. The applicant has further submitted that Controlling Officer of Lallaguda Workshop i.e. Chief Workshop Manager, keeping in view of the Boards direction, and his ability/working, has requested the administration through letter dated 17.04.2025, to re-consider the recent posting orders issued and arrange to retain him at Carriage Workshop, Lallaguda in order to maintain continuity of work. The table showing that he had worked in various capacities at Secunderabad, would show that I have not completed 15 years as per the Railway Board Instructions, and the respondents have fairy admitted that I have completed only 8 years 7 Months. It is unkown to any law that the respondents are taking his services not only as Gazetted, but also Non-gazetted.
28. The applicant has further submitted that the respondents have not stated under what rule/Instructions, they are entitled to count his services of non-
gazetted and gazetted. The Railway Board, which is a policy making body, has not stated that the tenure should be calculated by taking into the services of Non-gazetted and Gazetted. The respondents 1 and 2, without having the knowledge of Railway Board's instructions, are filing replies, before this Tribunal, which are denied.
29. The applicant has further submitted that in regard to the accommodation of Respondent No.3, Sri.N.Santosh Kumar Reddy, on his promotion, the respondents 1 and 2 have not answered the allegations that has given evasive replies, which does not convey any meaning. The respondents 1 & 2 have conveniently failed to follow the instructions issued by the Railway Board regarding posting of Group 'A' Officers in field units and admittedly, Digitally signed by D SATYANARYANA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S= D SATYANARYANA Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= e9139f685446ba88b1951014524a4686cad5619e209d584134900f3759545854, SERIALNUMBER= 2185a73b6158e7c1d87ad8c68c3773e034c1e5d18191c31d7a3f9699631571dc, [email protected], CN=D SATYANARYANA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.07.24 17:27:57-07'00' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 P a g e | 17 of 32 OA.No.021/0339/2025 Respondent no.3 is a Group 'A' Officer. Though the respondents 1 & 2 put forth their case, as sincere officer, but they disobediently and intentionally, failed to follow the instructions issued by the Railway Board in respect of posting of the Group 'A' Officer. Though the respondent 1 & 2 stated that the transfers on Administration exigencies, but failed to explain this Tribunal the administrative exigencies. Further, as per Railway Board Letter No. E(O)III-2023/PL/01 dated 21.02.2023, Direct Recruit Group 'A' Officers, should not be posted at Headquarters, for their initial 10 years. Respondent No.3, Shri N. Santhosh Kumar Reddy, has been posted in Headquarters, which is against the Railway Board's instructions.
30. The applicant has further submitted that the respondents claim that Tirupati offers good medical facilities. However, despite knowing his health condition, he was transferred to Tirupati, where adequate treatment for his ailments is not available. This appears to be a targeted action to accommodate Shri N. Santhosh Kumar Reddy in the Headquarters area. He had made both written and personal representations on 17.04.2025, regarding his health condition and requested reconsideration of his transfer. Despite this, his request was not considered, compelling him to approach this Tribunal.
31. The applicant has further submitted that the following officers have been working in Headquarters for more than 7 to 10 years, with only minor breaks, indicating inconsistency in the application of transfer policies:
Sl.No. Name of Officers Designation Working since
1 D.Malathi Dy.CPO 2008
2 A.J.V.Prakash Dy.CPO 2008
3 B.Arum Kumar Dy.CPO 2008
Digitally signed by D SATYANARYANA
DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S= D SATYANARYANA Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= e9139f685446ba88b1951014524a4686cad5619e209d584134900f3759545854, SERIALNUMBER= 2185a73b6158e7c1d87ad8c68c3773e034c1e5d18191c31d7a3f9699631571dc, [email protected], CN=D SATYANARYANA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.07.24 17:27:57-07'00' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 P a g e | 18 of 32 OA.No.021/0339/2025 4 Yedla Abhilash Dy.CPO 2015 5 G.Kalpana SPO 2015 6 D.Narasimha APO 2017 7 P.Venkateswarulu APO 2017 8 S.K.Peer Babu APO 2017 9 B.Venkata Subbaiah APO 2019 The above table reveals that the Officers, who are working in Head Quarters more than the period, which he had worked. Admittedly, he has been working since 2015, being a Group 'A' officer, and his posting at Head Quarters, in contrary to the Railway Board Instructions. The respondents 1 & 2, having known the said facts, and intentionally, and the reasons best known to them, have allowed to work continuously in Head Quarters. He had never disobeyed the orders of respondents and carried out the transfer orders without any prejudice as per the requirement of Administration. He being suffered with serious ailments and undergoing treatment, had requested the administration to post him anywhere in the city of Hyderabad/ Secunderabad for continuity of treatment. The immediate controlling Officer, after ascertaining the administration exigencies required at Carriage Workshop, Lallaguda, had requested the respondents through Letter dated 17.04.2025 to consider his case for posting at Carriage Workshop, Lallaguda. Further, the judgments, relied upon by the respondents have no application to the facts of the present case.
32. The applicant has further submitted that in a case before the Hon'ble High Court, at Madras, Justice CV Karthikeyan, while emphasizing that the transfer orders, which disregard the family, health or safety concerns of an employee, is against human dignity and violates Article 21 of the Constitution, has held that Digitally signed by D SATYANARYANA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S= D SATYANARYANA Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= e9139f685446ba88b1951014524a4686cad5619e209d584134900f3759545854, SERIALNUMBER= 2185a73b6158e7c1d87ad8c68c3773e034c1e5d18191c31d7a3f9699631571dc, [email protected], CN=D SATYANARYANA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.07.24 17:27:57-07'00' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 P a g e | 19 of 32 OA.No.021/0339/2025 "while issuing transfer orders, there must be a balance between the administration requirements and family responsibilities of the employee".
33. The applicant has further submitted that Tirupathi Workshop to which place he was transferred, has been bifurcated, and the unit is in South Coast Railways. Admittedly he belongs to South Central Railway, if his transfer is effected, he has to be transferred to South Coast Railway, and the respondents 1 & 2 are not competent to transfer Inter Zonal Railway. The Railway Board is alone competent to effect Inter Zonal Transfers. In the present case, the the Tirupathi Workshop is included in the South Coast Railway, which is a separate zonal Railway, prima-facie, Respondent no. 2 is not competent to transfer to other zonal Railway. The applicant has, therefore, prayed this Tribunal to submissions made by him, and set aside the impugned transfer order dated 16.04.2025, and pass such orders as deemed fit in the interest of justice.
34. The respondents 1 and 2 have filed an additional reply statement to the rejoinder filed by the applicant. They have submitted that as per Para No.8 transfer policy of Railway Board letter No.E(O)III/2014/PL/05, dated 31.08.2015, the total stay at a stretch, at a particular station, should not be more than 10 years, and the total cumulative stay (in broken spells) should not be more than 15 years. Railway Board's instructions are very clear that the maximum tenure, at a particular station, should not be more than 10 years. This does not mean that an officer has to work at a particular station for the entire period of 10 years. As per the administrative requirement, the officer can be transferred to any station before maximum tenure of 10 years also.
Digitally signed by D SATYANARYANADN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S= D SATYANARYANA Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= e9139f685446ba88b1951014524a4686cad5619e209d584134900f3759545854, SERIALNUMBER= 2185a73b6158e7c1d87ad8c68c3773e034c1e5d18191c31d7a3f9699631571dc, [email protected], CN=D SATYANARYANA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.07.24 17:27:57-07'00' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 P a g e | 20 of 32 OA.No.021/0339/2025
35. The respondents have further submitted that as per the Railway Board's instructions dated 18.02.2009, issued under letter No. 2008/V-1/CVC/14 dated 18.02.2009, the maximum tenure of the officials (Gazetted & Non-Gazetted) in sensitive posts is 04 years, but there is no mention with regard to the minimum tenure for the transfer of the officers. However, as per the comprehensive transfer policy, issued by Railway Board, which has been re-circulated as Serial Circular no 87/2015. Normally, minimum tenure on a particular post at a time will be 2 years and a maximum tenure will be 5 years. For sensitive posts, maximum tenure will be 4 years. Minimum tenure will not be applicable for Junior Scale/Senior Scale of Group 'A' officer. However, in administrative exigencies, relaxation may be granted by cadre controlling officer. As can be seen, any person can be transferred even before completion of any tenure based on administrative exigencies. The Hon'ble Supreme Court ruled that a Government employee with a transferable position is subject to relocation and does not have the legal right to stay in one location. Nothing in the transfer orders issued by the appropriate authority infringes upon his legal rights.
36. The respondents have further submitted that the Railway Board letter No. E(O)III-223/PL/01, dated 21.02.2023, states that 'In order to ensure adequate exposure of field working to Direct Recruit Group 'A' Railway officers, it has been decided that for the initial 10 years of their service, directly recruited Group 'A' Railway officers shall normally be posted in field and shall not be posted in Headquarters'. The contention of the applicant that Respondent no 3, Sri N Santhosh Kumar Reddy, Direct recruit Group 'A' Officer, has been Digitally signed by D SATYANARYANA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S= D SATYANARYANA Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= e9139f685446ba88b1951014524a4686cad5619e209d584134900f3759545854, SERIALNUMBER= 2185a73b6158e7c1d87ad8c68c3773e034c1e5d18191c31d7a3f9699631571dc, [email protected], CN=D SATYANARYANA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.07.24 17:27:57-07'00' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 P a g e | 21 of 32 OA.No.021/0339/2025 accommodated in the Headquarters, is far from the truth, as the proposed posting as WPO/LGDS, is in a field unit in Secunderabad/Hyderabad area, and not in the Headquarters, which includes only offices in Rail Nilayam, and this again a desperate attempt to mislead this Tribunal by the Applicant.
37. The respondents have further submitted that the respondent No. 3 Sri N.Santhosh Kumar Reddy, Direct recruit Group 'A' officer, had reported to this office on 27.07.2023, on completion of mandatory training of 78 weeks from National Academy for Indian Railways (NAIR), Vadodara, and the working particulars of the officer since his reporting on this Railway are as under:
Sl No. Name of the Post Place of working Period of working Remarks From To_______ 1 APO/Cadre NA The officer is under the 27.07.2023 - 27.09.2023 sanctioned Extra Ordinary Leave (EOL) 2 APO/Engg/HYB Hyderabad 29.09.2023 10.02.2025 Worked in field unit Division 3 APO/Genl/SC Secunderabad 10.02.2025 Till date Working in field unit Division From the above facts, according to the respondents, it is evident that the respondent No. 3 Sri N. Santhosh Kumar Reddy, the Direct recruit Group 'A' officer, is not working in Headquarters office, and as per the instructions contained in the Railway Board letter No. E(O)III-223/PL/01, dated 21.02.2023, the officer is being providing adequate exposure to the field working.He was initially issued orders as APO/Cadre/HQ, as he had applied for Extra Ordinary Leave for a period of 2 months, in order to appear in the Civil Services Examination. On completion of his leave, he was posted to Hyderabad Division, and then transferred to Secunderabad Division, which are field units. Digitally signed by D SATYANARYANA
DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S= D SATYANARYANA Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= e9139f685446ba88b1951014524a4686cad5619e209d584134900f3759545854, SERIALNUMBER= 2185a73b6158e7c1d87ad8c68c3773e034c1e5d18191c31d7a3f9699631571dc, [email protected], CN=D SATYANARYANA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.07.24 17:27:57-07'00' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 P a g e | 22 of 32 OA.No.021/0339/2025 Respondent No.3 has been posted to adequate exposure to the working knowledge of Workshops in Indian Railway establishment.
38. The respondents have denied the allegations of the applicant regarding failure to follow instructions regarding posting of Group 'A' officer in field units, as far away from the truth, as the Workshop, Lalaguda is a field unit and the posting is in a field unit. There is no deviation from the policy issued by Railway Board regarding posting of Group 'A' Direct recruits. Further, the transfer of the applicant to Tirupati, is in order as per the Railway Board's instructions/guidelines. Tirupati is one of the major cities in Rayalaseema Region of Andhra Pradesh, and all the medical facilities including a dedicated Railway Health Unit, with adequate Railway Health officers, are available to cater the medical needs of Railway officers/staff. Various Hospitals of repute are available in Tirupati, offering medical services and the contention of the applicant that adequate treatment is not available in Tirupati, is nothing but an assumption of the Applicant.
39. The respondents have not disputed the fact that the applicant has made a written and personal representation dated 17.04.2025 to the respondents 1 and
2. The applicant had submitted the representation on the evening of 17.04.2025 in the dispatch section, being fully aware of the fact that 18th, 19th & 20th of April were holidays. Without giving any opportunity for the administration to even examine the representation, he had filed the present OA on 19.04.2025, with the malafide intention of obtaining a stay on the transfer order. He had not exhausted all the channels of remedy available to him before filing the OA. As Digitally signed by D SATYANARYANA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S= D SATYANARYANA Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= e9139f685446ba88b1951014524a4686cad5619e209d584134900f3759545854, SERIALNUMBER= 2185a73b6158e7c1d87ad8c68c3773e034c1e5d18191c31d7a3f9699631571dc, [email protected], CN=D SATYANARYANA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.07.24 17:27:57-07'00' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 P a g e | 23 of 32 OA.No.021/0339/2025 per Sec.20 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, "Applications not to be admitted unless other remedies exhausted: A Tribunal shall not ordinarily admit an application unless it is satisfied that the applicant had availed of all the remedies available to him under the relevant service rules as to redressal of grievances". This is against well settled law and the OA is liable for dismissal on this ground itself.
40. The respondents have denied the contention of the applicant that some of the officers are working in Headquarters for more than 7 to 10 years with only minor breaks without any documentary evidence as incorrect and is a desperate attempt to mislead this Tribunal. The factual position of the working particulars of the Officers, as mentioned by the applicant, in Headquarters, is as under:
Sl.No. Name of Officers Designation Working since Actually working since as mentioned in by applicant Secunderabad/Hyderabad area 1 D.Malathi Dy.CPO 2008 September 2017 2 A.J.V.Prakash Dy.CPO 2008 September 2024 (retired on 30.06.2025) 3 B.Arun Kumar Dy.CPO 2008 October 2024 (retirement on 31.07.2027) 4 Yedla Abhilash Dy.CPO 2015 August 2016 (on EOL for study purpose from 01/2018 to 12/2009) 5 G.Kalpana SPO 2015 On deputation to RRB/SC since 06/2020 6 D.Narasimha APO 2017 August 2018 7 P.Venkateswarulu APO 2017 Presently on deputation to Vigilance organization (retirement on 31.07.2027) 8 Sk.Peer Babu APO 2017 July 2018 (retirement on 07/2026) 9 B.Venkata APO 2019 March 2019 Subbaiah Digitally signed by D SATYANARYANA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S= D SATYANARYANA Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= e9139f685446ba88b1951014524a4686cad5619e209d584134900f3759545854, SERIALNUMBER= 2185a73b6158e7c1d87ad8c68c3773e034c1e5d18191c31d7a3f9699631571dc, [email protected], CN=D SATYANARYANA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.07.24 17:27:57-07'00' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 P a g e | 24 of 32 OA.No.021/0339/2025
41. The respondents have further contended that the applicant has submitted false information to this Tribunal, based on his own calculations and presumptions. Further, the above mentioned officers are not working/worked in a particular office/post for more than 4 years of maximum tenure prescribed for the sensitive posts in terms of Railway Board's RBV No.02/2009. They have worked in Secunderabad/Hyderabad area, in various capacities including the field units of Secunderabad, Hyderabad Divisions and Workshop/Lallaguda. A Government Servant cannot disobey a transfer order by not reporting at the place of posting and then go to a court to ventilate her/his grievances. It is her/his duty to first report for work. Such tendency of not reporting at the place of posting and indulging in litigation needs to be curbed.
42. The respondents have further contended that the employee, at the time of his/her appointment, has given an oath of allegiance, wherein it was stated that he/she will be willing to work anywhere on the Indian Railways. Further, the Competent Authority can transfer within the jurisdiction of the S.C. Railway Zone on administrative requirements. The statement made by the applicant that respondent no 1 and 2 are not competent to transfer the applicant to Workshop Tirupati, is far from the truth. Workshop Tirupati is still a part of South Central Railway and the Zonal authorities are competent to transfer an officer to any unit within the zone.The administration possesses the authority to transfer officers and staff, taking into account the demands of public interest and administrative necessities. An employee of the Government, who occupies a post that is transferable, may be moved to a different location. An employee occupying a transferable post does not have the right to stay posted at a specific Digitally signed by D SATYANARYANA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S= D SATYANARYANA Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= e9139f685446ba88b1951014524a4686cad5619e209d584134900f3759545854, SERIALNUMBER= 2185a73b6158e7c1d87ad8c68c3773e034c1e5d18191c31d7a3f9699631571dc, [email protected], CN=D SATYANARYANA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.07.24 17:27:57-07'00' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 P a g e | 25 of 32 OA.No.021/0339/2025 location. 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. The respondents, therefore, prayed this Tribunal to dismiss the OA, being devoid of merits.
43. Heard learned counsel on both sides and perused the pleadings on record.
44. The applicant is a Group-B Personnel Officer, presently working as Workshop Personnel Officer (WPO) at Carriage Workshop, Lallaguda, from 15.11.2024. But, as submitted by the respondents and accepted by the Applicant's counsel, on perusing the posting details of the applicant, it is very clear that the applicant was initially appointed as Junior Clerk through RRB, SC, on 09.05.1990, in Personnel Department, Rail Nilayam. Till 2012, he continued to progress in Non-Gazetted service in Personnel Department, Rail Nilayam, then he volunteered for the post of Assistant Personal Officer (APO) and on promotion to Group-B post, initially he was posted as APO/Bills/HQ in Rail Nilayam from 17.10.2012 to 02.04.2015, and subsequently, was posted to Vijayawada Division from 06.04.2015 to 08.09.2016. This is very clear that only after working for almost 02 years, 06 months period as APO/Hills/HQ in Rail Nilayam, the applicant was transferred and posted as APO in Vijayawada Division on 06.04.2015. On promotion to the Senior Scale of DPO, he was again transferred and posted as DPO/Secunderabad Division on 09.09.2016.
Since then, he has been working in different posts, which are located in Secunderabad only. He has worked as Secretary to PCPO, Secunderabad from Digitally signed by D SATYANARYANA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S= D SATYANARYANA Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= e9139f685446ba88b1951014524a4686cad5619e209d584134900f3759545854, SERIALNUMBER= 2185a73b6158e7c1d87ad8c68c3773e034c1e5d18191c31d7a3f9699631571dc, [email protected], CN=D SATYANARYANA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.07.24 17:27:57-07'00' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 P a g e | 26 of 32 OA.No.021/0339/2025 11.09.2019 to 02.06.2020, and as Senior Personnel Officer/Bills/HQ/Secunderabad, from 03.06.2020 to 07.11.2023, and again as Secretary to PCPO, Secunderabad, from 08.11.2023 to 14.11.2024. All these three postings, he did in same office. Subsequently, he was posted on 15.11.2024 as Workshop Personnel Officer, Lallaguda. On the analysis of the above information, it is very clear that whenever his transfer/posting is convenient to him, the applicant has never raised the issue of the completion of the tenure as per the policy in vogue. If his entire service of 35 years is considered, he has worked only for 17 months out of Secunderabad. The respondents have also furnished the details that in his entire Gazetted cadre, which is almost 12 years, 06 months, the applicant has not worked for more than 17 months outside the Headquarters. These facts establish the truth that the applicant has successfully got retained himself in Secunderabad only. None of these transfers, as mentioned above, required change of the residence of the applicant. The transfer policy of the Railway Board dated 31.08.2015, as presented by the applicant, envisaged that the total cumulative stay (his broken spells), at a stretch, at a particular station, should not be more than 15 years.
This policy does not differentiate the rank and cadre. Therefore, the applicant in Gazetted rank alone, has stayed in Secunderabad, since 17.10.2012 till now, excluding the period from 06.04.2015 to 08.09.2016, when he was in Vijayawada. And, if his total service from the date of joining is included, even then, he has stayed out of Secunderabad, only for 17 months out of 35 years of service. The stay of the applicant, at a particular station i.e., Secunderabad, is over and above 15 years. Therefore, there is no violation of the Board's direction by the respondents, as contended by the applicant in his pleadings.
Digitally signed by D SATYANARYANADN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S= D SATYANARYANA Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= e9139f685446ba88b1951014524a4686cad5619e209d584134900f3759545854, SERIALNUMBER= 2185a73b6158e7c1d87ad8c68c3773e034c1e5d18191c31d7a3f9699631571dc, [email protected], CN=D SATYANARYANA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.07.24 17:27:57-07'00' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 P a g e | 27 of 32 OA.No.021/0339/2025
45. As per the Railway Board's instructions dated 18.02.2009, issued under letter No.2008/V-1/CVC/14, the maximum tenure of the officials (Gazetted and Non-Gazetted) in sensitive posts is 04 years, but there is no mention with regard to the minimum tenure for the transfer of the officers. As per the comprehensive transfer policy issued by the Railway Board, re-circulated as Serial Circular No.87/2015, Para 1 (vii) 'Normally, minimum tenure on a particular post at a time will be 2 years and maximum tenure will be 5 years. For sensitive posts, maximum tenure will be 4 years. Minimum tenure will not be applicable for Junior Scale/Senior Scale Officers of Group 'A'. However, in administrative exigencies, relaxation may be granted by cadre controlling officer'. This gives a clarity that due to administrative exigencies, an officer can be transferred at any given point of time and an employee has to obey the transfer order, which is prerogative of the administrative authorities.
46. The Hon'ble Apex Court in S.C.Saxena v. Union of India & Others, vide its judgment dated 21.02.2006, has very clearly held that "A Government servant cannot disobey a transfer order by not reporting at the place of posting and then go to a court to ventilate his grievances. It is his duty to first report for work where he is transferred and to make a representation as to what may be his personal problems. This tendency of not reporting at the place of posting and indulging in litigation needs to be curbed."
47. In order to retain his present place of posting and gain sympathy of this Tribunal, the applicant has even attempted to bring out the point of his medical condition, which has no relevance to the case. As informed by the respondents, Tirupati, where the applicant has been transferred, is the second largest city in Digitally signed by D SATYANARYANA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S= D SATYANARYANA Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= e9139f685446ba88b1951014524a4686cad5619e209d584134900f3759545854, SERIALNUMBER= 2185a73b6158e7c1d87ad8c68c3773e034c1e5d18191c31d7a3f9699631571dc, [email protected], CN=D SATYANARYANA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.07.24 17:27:57-07'00' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 P a g e | 28 of 32 OA.No.021/0339/2025 the Rayalaseema Region of Andhra Pradesh, and there are major hospitals with full fledge medical facilities in addition to Railway Health Unit, which is the Railway Sub-Divisional Hospital attached to the Carriage Repair Shop, Tirupati.
48. The contention of the applicant that in order to accommodate the Respondent No.3, who is a Direct Recruit Group 'A' officer, the applicant has been transferred to Tirupati, and posting of Respondent No.3, is in violation of the Railway Board's letter No.E(O)III-223/PL/01, dated 21.02.2023, which states that in order to ensure adequate exposure of field working to Direct Recruit Group 'A' Railway Officers, it has been decided that for the initial 10 years of their service, directly recruited Group 'A' Railway Officers shall normally be posted in field and shall not be posted in Head Quarters.
49. The contention of the applicant is technically not correct as the Respondent No.3 has not been transferred to Headquarters, but posted to field units only. Only the postings in Rail Nilayam, are considered as Headquarter, but the Respondent NO.3 was posted as APO/Engg./HYB, Hyderabad Division, which is a field unit, and as APO/Genl/SC, Secunderabad Division, which is also a field unit. The Workshop at Lallaguda, is also a field unit. Therefore, the posting of Respondent No.3 is not in violation of the Railway Board's instructions. There is no deviation from the policy issued by the Railway Board, regarding posting of Group-A Direct Recruits. The transfer of the applicant to Tirupati, is also as per the Railway Board's instructions/guidelines. The applicant being a Group-B officer, should not compare his posting with Group-A Direct Recruit.
Digitally signed by D SATYANARYANA
DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S= D SATYANARYANA Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= e9139f685446ba88b1951014524a4686cad5619e209d584134900f3759545854, SERIALNUMBER= 2185a73b6158e7c1d87ad8c68c3773e034c1e5d18191c31d7a3f9699631571dc, [email protected], CN=D SATYANARYANA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.07.24 17:27:57-07'00' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 P a g e | 29 of 32 OA.No.021/0339/2025
50. It is further the contention of the applicant, as raised in his rejoinder, that the competent authority has not issued the transfer order is not correct, as the Workshop of Tirupati, is still a part of South Central Railway, and the Zonal authorities are competent to transfer an officer to any unit within the zone.
51. The contention of the applicant by raising few additional names of officers in his rejoinder, on the plea that all of them are staying for more than 7 to 10 years with only minor breaks, is not correct. In additional reply to rejoinder, the respondents have clarified this point very well. This Tribunal's view is that, it is the administrative authority's responsibility to transfer and post the officers in order to ensure the smooth running of the administration.
The applicant is simply an employee of the organization. As such, he has to obey the transfer/posting orders as given to him by the administrative authorities time to time. Since he has joined the cadre, which is transferable, he cannot oppose his transfer/posting because it is not totally convenient to him.
As seen from his Service Records earlier also, he has been shifted from one post to another post without completing the tenure, as contended by him, in the present case, but, in all such postings, he has not raised any objection because they were convenient to him. The convenience of the employee/Government servant cannot be the basis for running the administration. The applicant should keep in his mind the fact that at the time of joining the post or accepting the promotion, he has given an undertaking 'to serve in any part of the country'.
Therefore, the transfer of the applicant to Tirupati, is necessary for the smooth running of the administration and it is in the public interest.
Digitally signed by D SATYANARYANADN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S= D SATYANARYANA Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= e9139f685446ba88b1951014524a4686cad5619e209d584134900f3759545854, SERIALNUMBER= 2185a73b6158e7c1d87ad8c68c3773e034c1e5d18191c31d7a3f9699631571dc, [email protected], CN=D SATYANARYANA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.07.24 17:27:57-07'00' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 P a g e | 30 of 32 OA.No.021/0339/2025
52. This Tribunal is in perfect agreement with the respondents, who have quoted the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of U.P. & Others v. Vs Gobardhanlal, (2004 (11) SCC 402), whereby the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that -"Transfer is prerogative of the authorities concerned and Court should not normally interfere except when transfer order shown to be vitiated by malafide or in violation of any statutory provision or having passed by an authority not competent to pass such an order".
53. It is understood that the applicant has submitted representation deliberately on the dates when the office was on holiday, and without waiting for reply, approached this Tribunal by filing the present OA.
54. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in G.S.Puri Vs IOCL, (1996 IAD(DELHI)
669), has held that-
"It has further been held that the Central Administrative Tribunal whose jurisdiction is akin to that of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution 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."
55. This Tribunal has admitted the OA, when the applicant informed that he was posted in the present post on 15.10.2024, and again on 16.04.2025, along with post, he has been transferred to Tirupati. But, this was not the full facts, as presented by the respondents later in their reply by which a clear picture emerged about the applicant's managing to stay in Secunderabad and Hyderabad only. The applicant is working in a cadre, which is transferable.
Therefore, he cannot raise objection on his transfer.
Digitally signed by D SATYANARYANADN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S= D SATYANARYANA Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= e9139f685446ba88b1951014524a4686cad5619e209d584134900f3759545854, SERIALNUMBER= 2185a73b6158e7c1d87ad8c68c3773e034c1e5d18191c31d7a3f9699631571dc, [email protected], CN=D SATYANARYANA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.07.24 17:27:57-07'00' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 P a g e | 31 of 32 OA.No.021/0339/2025
56. The Hon'ble Apex Court in In Rajendra Roy Vs. Union of India, (AIR 1993 SC 1236/1993 SCC 148) has observed that -
"the order of transfer often causes a lot of difficulties and dislocation in the family set up of the concerned employees but on that score the order of transfer is not liable to be struck down. It was reiterated that in a transferable post an order of transfer is a normal consequence and personal difficulties are matters for consideration of the department. Unless such order is passed malafide or in violation of the rules of service and guidelines for transfer without any proper justification, the court and the Tribunal should not interfere with the order of transfer."
57. During the proceedings of this Tribunal, the 3rd respondent, in his oral averments, mentioned that due to the interim order of this Tribunal, he could not join in his new post after promotion, by which, he will lose his seniority vis-
a-vis batchmates. On this point, the Tribunal, in order to ensure justice to the 3rd respondent, who is not at fault for losing his seniority because of this Court case, directs the respondents 1 and 2 to permit the 3rd respondent to assume charge with back dates.
58. With these observations, it is very clear that there is nothing wrong in the impugned order passed by the respondents. The respondents have transferred the applicant duly following all the rules and regulations. The applicant since joining the Government service, has stayed in Secunderabad, most of the time except 17 months of his service career. Therefore, this Tribunal do not find any merit in the OA, and the OA, being devoid of merits, is dismissed. The interim stay granted on 21.04.2025, stands vacated. There shall be no order as to costs.
( SHALINI MISRA ) ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER Dsn.
Digitally signed by D SATYANARYANADN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S= D SATYANARYANA Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= e9139f685446ba88b1951014524a4686cad5619e209d584134900f3759545854, SERIALNUMBER= 2185a73b6158e7c1d87ad8c68c3773e034c1e5d18191c31d7a3f9699631571dc, [email protected], CN=D SATYANARYANA Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.07.24 17:27:57-07'00' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0 P a g e | 32 of 32