Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
L Yallappa Rao vs Central Silk Board on 11 November, 2025
1
O.A.No.170/00157/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.170/00157/2025
Order Reserved on: 03.11.2025
Date of Order: 11.11.2025
CORAM:
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE DR. SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A)
Shri. L. YALLAPPA RAO, age 45 Years,
S/o Late Krishna Rao
Superintendent (Admn) Under Transfer,
Central Silk Board, Ministry of Textiles,
Govt. of India, BTM Layout, Madiwala,
BANGALORE-560068. ...... Applicant
(By Advocate: Shri.Sampangi Ramaiah)
Vs.
1. The Joint Secretary (Silk),
Ministry of Textiles, Government of India,
NEW DELHI-110 011.
2. The Member Secretary, Central Silk Board,
Ministry of Textiles, GOI,
Madiwala, Hosur Road, BANGALORE-560068
3. The Director, National Silkworm Seed Organization,
Central Silk Board, Government of India, MoT,
Madiwala, Hosur Road,
BENGALURU-560 068. ......Respondents
(By Advocate Shri.Vishnu Bhat)
SHAI SHAINEY
CAT
VIJU
NEY Bangalore
2025.11.14
17:33:39
VIJU +05'30'
2
O.A.No.170/00157/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
ORDER
PER: DR. SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A)
This Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal's Act. 1985 to claim the following reliefs:
"(i) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI or any other order quashing the Impugned Orders No. CSB-
6(3)/2024-ES.II dated 1st January, 2025 and with respect to the applicant Order No.CSB- 17(39)/2011-ES.I/Vol.II Dated 14.02.2025 & 14.03.2025 passed by the 2nd Respondent which have been produced as ANNEXURE-A1,A6 & A11 and Relief Order No.CSB/NSSO/YRL/2025-ES Dated 17.01.2025 (Annexure-A2) passed by the 3rd Respondent, as the said orders are illegal, unjust, arbitrary, capricious, and irrational and violate of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, apart from being contrary to the principles of rules of natural justice.
(ii) ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS or any other appropriate Writ, Order, or Direction, directing the Respondents to consider the Applicant's plea for posting either to Mysore, or to retain in any units at Bangalore. At least consider his posting anywhere in Karnataka in accordance with the guidelines contained in DoPT's O.M dated 2.07.2015 as well as CSB Transfer Policy 2018.
(iii) Pass any such other orders or issue such other directions as this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit in the facts & circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity."
2. The reliefs are claimed based on the grounds as mentioned in paragraphs 5(a)(1) to (6) of the Original Application. The brief facts of SHAI SHAINEY CAT VIJU NEY Bangalore 2025.11.14 17:33:39 VIJU +05'30' 3 O.A.No.170/00157/2025/CAT/BANGALORE the case of the applicant, as mentioned in the synopsis of the O. A are that the applicant is aggrieved by the impugned order No. CSB- 6(3)/2024-ES.II dated 1st January 2025 (Annexure-A1) of Respondents (Central Silk Board) who have transferred the applicant from Bangalore (Karnataka) to Berhampore (West Bengal) on promotion, and he was relieved by the Respondent No.3 vide order No.CSB/NSSO/YRL/2025-ES Dated 17.01.2025 (Annexure-A2). The applicant submitted two representations dated 16.01.2025 (A-3) & 20.01.2025 (A-4), but no decision was communicated by the Respondents. Hence, the applicant came before this Tribunal seeking relief vide OA No.62/2025, which came to be disposed of on 29.01.2025 (A5) with the directions to the Respondents to decide the aforesaid two representations within a period of one month. Accordingly, Respondent No.2 informed vide Memorandum No. CSB- 17(39)/2011-ES.I/Vol.II dated 14.02.2025 (Annexure-A6) stating that the Competent Authority has not accepted his request due to urgent requirement of Assistant Director(A&A) at CSR&TI Berhampore (W.B).
3. The applicant further submitted a representation dated 01.03.2025 (A10) for re-consideration on the additional grounds as SHAI SHAINEY CAT VIJU NEY Bangalore 2025.11.14 17:33:39 VIJU +05'30' 4 O.A.No.170/00157/2025/CAT/BANGALORE narrated in his representation, which came to be disposed by the 2nd Respondent vide Intimation No.CSB-17(39)/2011-ES.I/Vol. II dated 14.03.2025 (A11) stating that the reply given to earlier representations still holds good. The present Writ Petition is being filed under the change in circumstances, arising fresh cause of action as narrated in the foregoing paras.
4. The applicant submits that due to the deliberate denial by the Respondent Board either to transfer him to Mysore or to retain him in Bangalore, despite having clear vacancies at both places. This will also hamper his official duties apart from his personal family life. Hence, totally aggrieved by the orders passed by the Respondents, the applicant has approached this Tribunal for relief as sought for
5. On notice, respondents have filed their reply and the applicant has not filed any rejoinder.
6. When the case came up for final hearing on 03.11.2025, learned counsel Shri.Sampangi Ramaiah for the applicant and Shri.Vishnu Bhat for the respondents were present and heard.
7. We have carefully gone through the records and considered the rival contentions.
SHAI SHAINEY CAT VIJU NEY Bangalore 2025.11.14 17:33:39 VIJU +05'30' 5 O.A.No.170/00157/2025/CAT/BANGALORE
8. This is the second round of litigation. Earlier the applicant had approached this Tribunal through O.A No.170/0062/2025 for quashment of the transfer order dated 01.01.2025 which is challenged in this O.A and the Tribunal vide order dated 29.01.2025 disposed of the same with a direction to the respondents to dispose of his earlier two representations.
9. Further, it appears that the applicant was initially appointed at Bangalore on 03.06.2011. Thereafter, in July 2016, he was transferred to Andhra Pradesh and on July 2019, he was transferred to Mysore. Thereafter, on 13.8.2021, he was again posted at Bengaluru. Hence, sufficient time has been passed at Bangalore and around, within the State of Karnataka and the Zone I for the applicant. Further, after the earlier order of this Tribunal dated 29.1.2025 in O.A 62/2025, it is evident that the earlier representations dated 16.21.2025 and 21.1.2025 have already been disposed of vide Central Office, CSB Bengaluru Letters dated 29.01.2025 and 14.02.2025 respectively with advice to report for duty immediately at CSR&TI, Berhampore as no Assistant Director (A&A) is presently working at this Institute.
10. Further, the applicant's spouse, Smt.L.Padmavathi Bai, had submitted a similar request to MoT which had also been disposed of vide CO Letter dated 27.02.2025 and also intimated that no further correspondence SHAI SHAINEY CAT VIJU on the same subject will be entertained. All these facts are NEY Bangalore 2025.11.14 17:33:39 VIJU +05'30' 6 O.A.No.170/00157/2025/CAT/BANGALORE narrated in the impugned order dated 14.3.2025 referred as Annexure A-11 in the O.A. With the said letter, a further grievance petition of the applicant dated 01.03.2025 stood disposed of. Hence, it is evident that the respondents have been disposing of a series of petitions from the applicant. Application after application cannot make the case of the applicant any better.
11. The basic facts of the case are not denied. This Original Application is basically challenging the transfer order dated 01.01.2025, transferring the applicant from NSSO Bengaluru to CSR&TI, Berhampore, West Bengal (Annexure A-1), the relieving order dated17.01.2025 (Annexure A-2), Annexure A-6 reply to the representation dated 31.01.2025 along with the endorsements and another reply dated 14.03.2025 regarding reconsideration of request for accommodating him anywhere in Karnataka as Assistant Director (A&A).
12. From the averments of the parties, it is evident that this present transfer of the applicant is based on his promotion dated 01.01.2025 which is evidently mentioned in the Transfer Order dated 01.01.2025 at Annexure A-1 that:
"On the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee which met on 17.12.2024 for filling up of the SHAI SHAINEY CAT VIJU NEY Bangalore 2025.11.14 17:33:39 VIJU +05'30' 7 O.A.No.170/00157/2025/CAT/BANGALORE vacancies of Assistant Director (Admn & Accounts), the following Superintendents (Admn.) in Level-7 (Rs.44900-142400) are appointed on promotion to the post of Assistant Director (Admn. & Accts.) in Level-10 (Rs.56100/--177500) of the Pay Matrix on a regular basis. On their promotion, they are retained/posted to CSB Offices as indicated below:-"
Clearly it was a transfer at the time of promotion. A specific query was posed from the Court as to whether the applicant may forgo his promotion so that the department can re-examine his retention? The learned counsel for the applicant declined. It is surprising the applicant being at a senior level 10 of the department wants to take the promotion also and does not want to be shifted out of his present place of posting where he had been serving for quite a long time.
13. Let us examine one by one the contentions taken by the applicant on the grounds.
The first ground mentioned by the applicant in para 5a.(1) is that the applicant's aged and ailing mother's health issues, who is bed ridden due to replacement of both knee caps, for which his presence nearby places is very much required, apart from his wife's health issues also. SHAI SHAINEY CAT VIJU NEY Bangalore 2025.11.14 17:33:39 VIJU +05'30' 8 O.A.No.170/00157/2025/CAT/BANGALORE In support of the same, the applicant says that this is negated by the Central Silk Board transfer policy of 2018 wherein at paragraph 9.10 inter-alia other things mentions the following:-
" 9. Salient conditions:
9.10 Other things remaining same, while considering transfers on request. preference would be given to those who have school-going children, especially those studying in classes 10, 11 and 12, in particular daughters, and marriageable children, especially daughters, old parents with chronic ailments. Proposals/requests for transfer at a station where an officer has worked earlier, generally will not be entertained before 5years period from the date of relief at the earlier station.
Simple reading of the above as per him shows that he should be retained at his present place as his aged and ailing mother, who is bedridden due to replacement of both knee caps, and because of his two daughters' educational problems. The elder one is completing 11th standard and appearing in 12th class and preparing for JEE (advanced) in the same college. The second daughter is appearing in 3rd standard at Mysore.
We have carefully given consideration to the paragraph 9.10 of the said circular which only mentions that, 'other things remaining same, while considering transfers on request, preference would be SHAI SHAINEY CAT VIJU NEY Bangalore 2025.11.14 17:33:39 VIJU +05'30' 9 O.A.No.170/00157/2025/CAT/BANGALORE given to those who have school-going children, especially those studying in classes 10, 11 and 12, in particular daughters, and marriageable children, especially daughters, old parents with chronic ailments.' But the said clause makes is very clear that there is no vested right for such transfer, but it was only a relative criteria for consideration. It is only relevant if there are alternatives available as it speaks of only other things remaining same while considering transfer such consideration will be there. But along with there are other norms which manifestly made it clear at clause 4.1 (iii) of the said transfer guidelines which mentions, Notwithstanding anything contained in this policy, Govt. may, if considered necessary in public interest transfer or post any officer/staff at any station or post.
Further, there are certain specific guidelines which are applicable to Group A officers from which the applicant belongs to, i.e., paragraph 7.3 wherein in sub-paragraph (vi) it mentions that:
"Notwithstanding anything contained in this policy, in particular in this para, the Member- Secretary, Central Silk Board, Bangalore may, if considered necessary, order transfers at any time of the year in relaxation of the policy/norms and criteria stated in this para."
SHAI SHAINEY CAT VIJU NEY Bangalore 2025.11.14 17:33:39 VIJU +05'30' 10 O.A.No.170/00157/2025/CAT/BANGALORE This specific paragraph is not there for Group C and B. That means that for a very senior officer who is in Group A, "The employer in the said policy has the right to order transfers at any time of the year in relaxation of the policy/norms and criteria stated in the interest of the Organization." Hence, the grounds made out in paragraph 5(a)(1) and (2) of the O.A do not help the applicant.
14. Further in paragraph 5(a)(3), the applicant mentions that the applicant's wife is working on a contract basis at Mysore to support his family commitments besides facing severe backache, owing to regular support for her bedridden mother-in-law's day-to-day activities. The applicant points out to paragraph 9.11 wherein it mentions that:
"Transfer on compassionate grounds viz. posting of Husband & Wife at same station, physically challenged employees, posting of employees who have mentally retarded children and such other categories will be done, subject to availability of vacancies and other administrative exigencies, duly keeping in view the instructions issued by DoPT/ Govt. from time to time. Transfers of both husband and wife in same place/unit on request will depend upon the administrative requirements of the office of choice. For physically handicapped candidates, persons with more than 40% disability will ordinarily not be transferred. However, the transfer will be effected on request/mutual requests."
SHAI SHAINEY CAT VIJU NEY Bangalore 2025.11.14 17:33:39 VIJU +05'30' 11 O.A.No.170/00157/2025/CAT/BANGALORE Simple reading of this clause, also clearly shows that even a case of 'spouse' also is subject to availability of vacancies and other administrative reasons.
At the time of this discussion, both parties agreed that now the wife of the applicant is not working on a contract basis in Mysore. It is also further clear that the wife is looking after the daughters and mother-in-law, and they are staying in Mysore while the applicant is living in Bangalore. Hence, this paragraph also does not make a good case for the applicant.
15. In grounds 5(a)(4), the applicant mentions that there are two vacancies already existing one each at Bangalore and Mysore, for which applications are invited for filling them on deputation and no response was received as on last date i.e. 12.12.2024. Again, last date for submission of application was extended till 26.02.2025. Then also no one appears to have been applied from any departments.
But this ground itself does not make any sense, as any of the posts of the senior officers as held by the applicant (Class I) is at the discretion of the department. They know the vacancy position, work load, essentiality, urgency and availability of manpower and, SHAI SHAINEY CAT VIJU NEY Bangalore 2025.11.14 17:33:39 VIJU +05'30' 12 O.A.No.170/00157/2025/CAT/BANGALORE accordingly, if a person has been posted out on promotion, it cannot merely be invalidated based on any vacancy anywhere in the organization. Hence, this ground does not make any statutory vested right for the applicant to be retained anywhere.
16. In paragraph 5(a)(5), the applicant says that 5 of applicant's seniors have been promoted with him and retained at same office, whereas he has been disturbed being junior most to all of them, that too at far off place from Karnataka to West Bengal. The applicant further asserts that the Zone-wise transfer policy was also not followed in his case.
The applicant emphasizes that there is a zonal transfer policy in the said transfer policy of the Central Silk Board ,2018. Although zonal classification is there which one can verify in the transfer policy. The applicant asserts that the policy envisages that all transfers should be within the zone. But the applicant is not able to show that he has any right to be posted only within his zone, i.e., he is in zone I, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Kerala and Maharashtra. The applicant fails to show us any such provision.
17. The respondents, in their reply statement to the grounds in para 5(a)(4) have also made it very manifestly clear that the transfers are SHAI SHAINEY CAT VIJU NEY Bangalore 2025.11.14 17:33:39 VIJU +05'30' 13 O.A.No.170/00157/2025/CAT/BANGALORE made based on functional requirements and in the interest of administrative necessity. They further clarified that, with regard to the alleged retention of five other officers who were also promoted along with the applicant with reference to paragraph 5(a)5 and 6, four of them are due for superannuation within the next two years. As per the CSB Transfer Policy 2018, such officers (who are going to retire in two years) may be retained at the same station to ensure continuity and in the interest of the Organization. In contrast, the applicant has a residual service until April 2039 (14 years). Therefore, his posting to CSR&TI, Berhampore on promotion to the post of Assistant Director (A&A) was made in alignment with long-term institutional requirements and policy norms.
The respondents have clearly shown that the transfer mentioned on serial No. 4 in the transfer list, the said officer had retired on 31.10.2025. The officer at serial No.5 will retire on 31.10.2026 and the officer at serial no.5 will retire on 30.09.2026 and serial no.6 will retire on 30.09.2026, serial no.7 has already retired on 31.7.2025 and serial no.9 will retire on 30.04.2026. Further the officer at serial no.8 is a lady Smt.Sreedevi Bhupalam who is transferred from SSPC Hindupur to NSSO Bengaluru. Hence, the applicant's case is very different from others and their predicament cannot be compared and there is no SHAI SHAINEY CAT VIJU NEY Bangalore 2025.11.14 17:33:39 VIJU +05'30' 14 O.A.No.170/00157/2025/CAT/BANGALORE differential or any hostile treatment for the applicant. We have carefully examined their cases and we do not find any iota of discrimination or malafide against the applicant. Hence, we are in agreement with the submission of the respondents.
18. In paragraph 5(a)(6), the applicant mentions that the officers at serial Nos.6 and 7 (in the promotion list) are from Dehradun and Orissa and are in the verge of retirement within two years, it is learnt that both are ready to proceed near to their native places, so that they can get settled at the end of their service. Instead of transferring the needy persons, the applicant has been disturbed unnecessarily, by retaining them at Bangalore itself, which is biased, highly harassing and caused injustice to the applicant. Whereas it is evident that the persons on the transfer list at Serial No.6 and 7 are retiring shortly or have retired. Hence, their case is not comparable with the applicant's and their predicament will not make out any case for the applicant.
In a case of a transfer on promotion, when the applicant has technically said that he would like to take his promotion also, in such cases for such a senior level officer in Group A no case is made out to either show that any of the statutory rules of transfer are violated in his case, nor we could find any alleged malafide put forth or substantiated. SHAI SHAINEY CAT VIJU NEY Bangalore 2025.11.14 17:33:39 VIJU +05'30' 15 O.A.No.170/00157/2025/CAT/BANGALORE Hence, we do not find any convincing case in favour of the applicant to interfere with the impugned order.
19. In the case of Union of India v. S.L.Abbas in Civil Appeal No.2348 of 1993 (AIR 1993 SCC 2444) , the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 27.4.1993 held that:
"6. An order of transfer is an incident of Government Service. Fundamental Rule 11 says that "the whole time of a Government servant is at the disposal of the Government which pays him and he may be employed in any manner required by proper authority". Fundamental Rule 15 says that "the President may transfer a government servant from one post to another''. That the respondent is liable to transfer anywhere in India is not in dispute..............
7. Who should be transferred where, is a matter for the appropriate authority to decide. Unless the order of transfer is vitiated by malafides or is made in violation of any statutory provisions, the Court cannot interfere with it. While ordering the transfer, there is no ·doubt, the authority must keep in mind the guidelines issued by the Government on the subject. Similarly if a person makes any representation with respect to his transfer, the appropriate authority must consider the same having regard to the exigencies of administration......."
20. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajendra Singh and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2009) 15 SCC 178, held as follows:
SHAI SHAINEY CAT VIJU NEY Bangalore 2025.11.14 17:33:39 VIJU +05'30' 16 O.A.No.170/00157/2025/CAT/BANGALORE "8. A government servant has no vested right to remain posted at a place of his choice nor can he insist that he must be posted at one place or the other. He is liable to be transferred in the administrative exigencies from one place to the other. Transfer of an employee is not only an incident inherent in the terms of appointment but also implicit as an essential condition of service in the absence of any specific indication to the contrary. No Government can function if the government servant insists that once appointed or posted in a particular place or position, he should continue in such place or position as long as he desires (see State of U.P. v. Gobardhan Lal, (2004) 11 SCC 402: 2005 SCC (L&S) 55, SCC p. 406, para 7)."
21. We noticed that in the case of the applicant, no statutory provisions are either violated or any malafide has been put forth or substantiated. Further his transfer is associated with his promotion, and he has spent considerable time in his present Zone I and the present place of posting, and he is a fairly senior Class I Officer of the Government. Hence, we pass the following orders:
The Original Application is dismissed. Accordingly, Miscellaneous Applications, if any pending, are disposed of. No costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
(DR. SANJIV KUMAR) (JUSTICE S. SUJATHA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
SvVIJU
SHAI SHAINEY
CAT
Bangalore
NEY 2025.11.14
17:33:39
VIJU +05'30'