Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Asis Kumar Mallik vs Prasar Bharti on 13 June, 2025
1 o.a. 350.01380.2024
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
KOLKATA BENCH, KOLKATA
No. O.A. 350/01380/2024 Heard on 21.05.2025
Date of order: 13.06.2025
Present : Hon'ble Mr. Anindo Majumdar, Administrative Member
Asis Kumar Mallik, Son of Late Jagatbandhu
Mallick, aged about 58 years, Working as
Assistant Director (Programme), CRD Kolkata
(Sales Division, Kolkata), residing at Village and
Post Ghoshpur (Itkhola), District-North 24
Parganas, West Bengal - 743289.
........ Applicant.
- VERSUS-
1. Union of India, service through the Secretary,
Ministry of Information and Broadcasting,
Government of India, Room No. 655, A-Wing.
Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.
2. The Chief Executive Officer, Prasar Bharti (AIR
& DD), Mandi House, Copernicus Marg, New
Delhi-110001.
3. The Director General, Doordarshan,
Doordarshan Bhawan, Mandi House,
Copernicus Marg, New Delhi-110001.
4. The Director General (AIR), All India Radio,
Akashvani Bhavan, Parliament Street, New Delhi-
110001.
5. The Deputy Director of Admn. (P), Directorate
General, All India Radio, Akashvani Bhavan,
Parliament Street, New Delhi - 110001.
6. The Head of Sales and the Dy. Director
General, SMD, Sales Division, All India Radio,
Digitally signed by DhanuRam Hansda
DhanuRam
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6595, OID.2.5.4.65=
1335963871619011253g9LkE5GCXYJC4, Phone=
ae67f2fe2825a3d09ab7e1f6c3245d45a1b89c1257419c6eb7e8dad5b
6505515, PostalCode=711112, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=
c6a08597b4f862e0885e118c2835105ca8a490fa0a973f858e89b777a
0a70d71, CN=DhanuRam Hansda
Hansda Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2025.06.23 17:39:15+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
2 o.a. 350.01380.2024
Soochna Bhavan, 8th Floor, CGO Complex, Lodhi
Road, New Delhi-110003.
7. The Additional Director General (Admin), ER 1
& 2, Akashvanı Bhawan, 4th Floor, Eden Garden,
Kolkata - 700001.
8. The Additional Director General (Co-ops), ER 1
& 2, Akashvani Bhawan, 3rd Floor, Eden Garden,
Kolkata-700001.
....... Respondents.
For the Applicant : Mr. Arpa Chakraborty, Counsel
For the Respondents : Mr. S. Paul, Counsel
ORDER
In accordance with the order of the Hon'ble Chairman, CAT, Principal Bench, dated 10.09.2021 issued under Sub -Section (6) of Section 5 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, this matter can be taken up by a Bench consisting of a single Member. Accordingly, this matter is taken up for disposal by this Single Bench.
2. The applicant has filed this Original Application, seeking the following relief(s):
"a) Office Order of Transfer being Office Order No. 02/02/2024-SI(A)part dated 24.08.2024 issued by the respondent No.5 along with the Recommendation of Transfer Recommendation Committee stated therein is not tenable in the eye of law and as such the same should be quashed;
b) An Order do issue directing the respondents to act and proceed in accordance with the provisions of law and strictly in terms of the Transfer Policy for Regular Employees in Prasar Bharati dated 26.03.2021 of the respondents and thereby allowing him to continue his duty as Assistant Director (Programme), CRD Kolkata under the respondents or at any nearby units at Kolkata;
c) To grant all consequential benefits;
Digitally signed by DhanuRam Hansda
DhanuRam
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6595, OID.2.5.4.65= 1335963871619011253g9LkE5GCXYJC4, Phone= ae67f2fe2825a3d09ab7e1f6c3245d45a1b89c1257419c6eb7e8dad5b 6505515, PostalCode=711112, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= c6a08597b4f862e0885e118c2835105ca8a490fa0a973f858e89b777a 0a70d71, CN=DhanuRam Hansda Hansda Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.06.23 17:39:15+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
3 o.a. 350.01380.2024
d) To certify and transmit the entire records and papers pertaining to the applicant's case so that after the causes shown thereof conscionable justice may be done unto the applicant by way of grant of reliefs as prayed for in (a) and (b) above;
e) Any other order or orders as the Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper."
3. The applicant had earlier filed this O.A. challenging the order of the Respondent No. 5 dated 24.08.2024 (Annexure A/2) whereby he has been transferred from his present place of posting at Kolkata CRD to DDK, Bhubaneshwar. This Tribunal, vide order dated 20.09.2024, had directed the respondents not to release the applicant from his present place of posting till the next date of listing and had directed them to file their reply to the O.A. This interim order was extended by this Tribunal from time to time and the applicant is continuing in his present place of posting on this strength of this order.
4. Heard the Ld. Counsel for both the sides and considered the material on record.
5. The arguments made by the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant are summarised below:
(a) The Transfer Policy of the organisation which has been circulated vide Office Memorandum dated 26.03.2021 stipulates that the prescribed tenure of posting is 4 years in case of stations which are not difficult. Para 12(h) of the Transfer Policy stipulates that officers who are within 02 (Two) years of reaching the age of superannuation and had already been posted at the station of their choice, normally shall not be transferred, except in case of Digitally signed by DhanuRam Hansda DhanuRam DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6595, OID.2.5.4.65= 1335963871619011253g9LkE5GCXYJC4, Phone= ae67f2fe2825a3d09ab7e1f6c3245d45a1b89c1257419c6eb7e8dad5b 6505515, PostalCode=711112, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= c6a08597b4f862e0885e118c2835105ca8a490fa0a973f858e89b777a 0a70d71, CN=DhanuRam Hansda Hansda Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.06.23 17:39:15+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 4 o.a. 350.01380.2024 administrative exigency or promotion. The applicant was promoted in the year 2020 and was transferred from another station to his present place of posting in the year, 2021. Further, there is no mention of administrative exigency in the transfer order dated 24.08.2024.
(b) The son of the applicant is suffering from mental disorder and had recently been admitted to the Kolkata Super Speciality Mental Nursing Home from where he was discharged on 13.06.2024.
(c) The applicant, vide the aforesaid transfer order, has been discriminated against since some officers who have been promoted in the year 2024, have been retained in their present place of posting.
(d) The applicant has already served in hard areas such as Port Blair and Gangtok and had always obeyed all transfer orders.
(e) The District Hospital, Basirhat has issued a disability certificate dated 05.02.2025 (Annexure RJ/1) wherein it has been certified that the son of the applicant namely Abhirup Mallik has 70% "moderate intellectual disability".
(f) Department of Personnel & Training, Office Memorandum dated 8th October, 2018, inter alia, provides that a Government employee, who is a care-giver of his dependent daughter/son/parents/spouse/brother/sister with a specified disability is exempted from rotational transfer. The list of specified disabilities mentioned in the said office Memorandum includes "mental illness".
Digitally signed by DhanuRam HansdaDhanuRam DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6595, OID.2.5.4.65= 1335963871619011253g9LkE5GCXYJC4, Phone= ae67f2fe2825a3d09ab7e1f6c3245d45a1b89c1257419c6eb7e8dad5b 6505515, PostalCode=711112, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= c6a08597b4f862e0885e118c2835105ca8a490fa0a973f858e89b777a 0a70d71, CN=DhanuRam Hansda Hansda Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.06.23 17:39:15+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 5 o.a. 350.01380.2024
6. The submissions made by the Ld. Counsel for the Respondents are summarised below:
(a) The order of this Tribunal dated 20.09.2024 wherein, interim protection was granted to the applicant, was passed ex-parte. The applicant had suppressed the fact that prior to his posting at CRD, Kolkata, he was posted at CRD, Kokata i.e. at the same station.
(b) The applicant was promoted in the year 2020 and even after that he has been retained in Kolkata.
(c) The other officers whose name figures at Para 2 of the impugned transfer order dated 24.08.2024 were promoted in the year 2024.
(d) The applicant was transferred to DDK, Bhubaneswar in view of administrative exigency to take care of programmes pertaining to the DDK, Bhubaneswar. At present there is no DDP or ADP posted in DDK, Bhubaneswar.
(e) The representation of the applicant dated 27/27.08.2024 could not be disposed of immediately, since, the applicant had moved the Tribunal immediately after the issue of the said transfer order. The representation of the applicant against his transfer has been examined and has been rejected, vide order dated 23.10.2024, and applicant has been informed accordingly.
(f) The Hon'ble Apex Court, has in a number of judgements held that transfer is a purely administrative exercise. Reliance has been specifically placed the following orders of the Hon'ble Apex Court:
a) Union of India v. SL Abbas
Digitally signed by DhanuRam Hansda
DhanuRam
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6595, OID.2.5.4.65= 1335963871619011253g9LkE5GCXYJC4, Phone= ae67f2fe2825a3d09ab7e1f6c3245d45a1b89c1257419c6eb7e8dad5b 6505515, PostalCode=711112, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= c6a08597b4f862e0885e118c2835105ca8a490fa0a973f858e89b777a 0a70d71, CN=DhanuRam Hansda Hansda Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.06.23 17:39:15+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
6 o.a. 350.01380.2024
b) Rajendra Singh & others v. State of Uttar Pradesh & others, (2009) 15 SCC 178
c) State of U.P. v. Gobardhan Lal, AIR 2004 SCC 2165
d) Mohd. Masood Ahmad v. State of U.P. and others, (2007) 8 SCC 150 Judgements
7. Extracts from some of the orders of the Hon'ble Apex court on the issue of transfer & posting are reproduced below:-
(a) Union of India v. SL Abbas:
"7. Who should be transferred where, is a matter for the appropriate authority to decide. Unless the order of transfer is vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any statutory provisions, the court cannot interfere with it. While ordering the transfer, there is no doubt, the authority must keep in mind the guidelines issued by the Government on the subject."
(b) Rajendra Singh & others v. State of Uttar Pradesh & others, (2009) 15 SCC 178:
"8. A government servant has no vested right to remain posted at a place of his choice nor con 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 con 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.
9. The courts are always reluctant in interfering with the transfer of an employee unless such transfer is vitiated by violation of some statutory provisions or suffers from mala fides..."
(c) Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Gobardhan Lal, AIR 2004 SC 2165:
Digitally signed by DhanuRam HansdaDhanuRam DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6595, OID.2.5.4.65= 1335963871619011253g9LkE5GCXYJC4, Phone= ae67f2fe2825a3d09ab7e1f6c3245d45a1b89c1257419c6eb7e8dad5b 6505515, PostalCode=711112, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= c6a08597b4f862e0885e118c2835105ca8a490fa0a973f858e89b777a 0a70d71, CN=DhanuRam Hansda Hansda Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.06.23 17:39:15+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 7 o.a. 350.01380.2024 "It is too late in the day for any Government servant to contend that once appointed or posted in a particular place or position, he should continue in such place ar position as long as he desires.
Transfer of an employee is not only an incident inherent in the terms of appointment but also implicit as an essential condition of service in the absence of any specific indication to the contra in the law governing or conditions of service. Unless the order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of a mala fide exercise of power or violative of any statutory provision (an Act or Rule) or passed by an authority not competent to do so, an order of transfer cannot lightly be interfered with as a matter of course or routine for any or every type grievance sought to be mode. Even administrative guidelines for regulating transfers or containing transfer policies at best may afford an opportunity to the officer or servant concerned to approach their higher authorities for redress but cannot have the consequence or depriving or denying the competent authority to transfer a particular officer/servant to any place in public interest and as is found necessitated by exigencies of service as long as the official status is not affected adversely and there is no infraction of any career prospects such as seniority, scale of pay and secured emoluments. This Court has often reiterated that the order of transfer made even in transgression of administrative guidelines cannot also be interfered with, as they do not confer any legally enforceable rights, unless, as noticed supra, shown to be vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any statutory provision.
A challenge to an order of transfer should normally be eschewed and should not be countenanced by the Courts or Tribunals as though they ore Appellate Authorities over such orders, which could assess the niceties of the administrative needs and requirements of situation concerned. This is for the reasons that Courts or Tribunals cannot substitute their own decisions in the matter of transfer for that of competent outhorities of the State and even allegations of mala fides when made must be such as to inspire confidence in the Court or are based on concrete materials and ought not to be entertained on the mere making of it or on consideration borne out of conjectures or surmises and except for strong and convincing reasons, no interference could ordinarily be made with an order of transfer."
(d) Mohd. Masood Ahmad v. State of U.P. and others, reported in (2007) 8 SCC 150:
Digitally signed by DhanuRam HansdaDhanuRam DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6595, OID.2.5.4.65= 1335963871619011253g9LkE5GCXYJC4, Phone= ae67f2fe2825a3d09ab7e1f6c3245d45a1b89c1257419c6eb7e8dad5b 6505515, PostalCode=711112, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= c6a08597b4f862e0885e118c2835105ca8a490fa0a973f858e89b777a 0a70d71, CN=DhanuRam Hansda Hansda Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.06.23 17:39:15+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 8 o.a. 350.01380.2024 "4. ....Since the petitioner was on a transferable post, in our opinion, the High Court has rightly dismissed the writ petition since transfer is an exigency of service and is an administrative decision. Interference by the courts with transfer orders should only be in very rare cases. As repeatedly held in several decisions, transfer is an exigency of service"
it is also submitted that having no ADP and no DDP at DDX, Bhubaneswar, the respondents has to consider the applicant at DDK, Bhubaneswar in view of administrative exigency to take care of programme matters pertaining to DDK, Bhubaneswar and considering the administrative exigency and requirement at DDK, Bhubaneswar, the transfer has been made."
Findings
8. From the above mentioned judgements, it is clear that the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that interference with transfer & postings is not warranted unless they are malafide or punitive in nature. I do not consider the impugned transfer order dated 24.08.2024 to be a mala fide exercise on the part of the respondents or that it is punitive in nature.
9. In the instant case, the applicant is due to retire from service on 30.09.2026. Para 12(h) of the transfer policy of the organisation circulated, vide Office Memorandum dated 26.03.2021, stipulates that Officers within 02 (Two) years of reaching the age of superannuation and who had already been posted at the station of their choice, normally shall not be transferred by except in case of administrative exigency or promotion. The applicant was promoted in the year 2020 and he could have been transferred out the Kolkata immediately thereafter. Instead, he has been transferred only at this Digitally signed by DhanuRam Hansda DhanuRam DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6595, OID.2.5.4.65= 1335963871619011253g9LkE5GCXYJC4, Phone= ae67f2fe2825a3d09ab7e1f6c3245d45a1b89c1257419c6eb7e8dad5b 6505515, PostalCode=711112, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= c6a08597b4f862e0885e118c2835105ca8a490fa0a973f858e89b777a 0a70d71, CN=DhanuRam Hansda Hansda Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.06.23 17:39:15+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 9 o.a. 350.01380.2024 stage, when he is within nearly Two (02) years from the date of his superannuation.
10. Further, the applicant had submitted a certificate of disability in respect of his son from District Hospital, Basirhat (Annexure RJ/1 pg 38). An extract from the said certificate is reproduced below:
"Certificate/UDID No. WB3090820050008489 Date of Issue: 05/02/2025 This is to certify that I/We have carefully examined Abhirup Mallik Son of Asis Kumar Mallik, Date of Birth 29/09/2005, Gender Male, Registration No. 1930/00000/2502/0008439, Resident of Vill. - Ghoshpur, P.o. - Ghoshpur, P.s. - Baduria Baduria, North 24 Parganas,, West Bengal - 743289 whose photograph is affixed above, and I am /we are satisfied that:
(A) He is a case of: Intellectual Disability.
(B) Name of affected body part: Brain.
(C) The diagnosis in his case is Moderate Intellectual Disability.
(D) He has 70% (in figure) seventy percent(in words) disability and the nature of certificate is Permanent as per the guidelines for the purpose of assessing the extent of specified disability in a person included under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 notified by Government of India vide S.0.1338(E) dated 12/03/2024."
11. The DoP&T, vide Office Memorandum dated 8th October, 2018 has exempted transfer of a person of Government employee who is a care-giver of his dependents who are suffering from a specified disability. An extract of the said OM is reproduced below:
"3. With the enactment of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 on April 17, 2017, the following instructions are issued in supersession of the above- mentioned OMs of even number dated June 6, 2014, November 17, 2014 and January 5, 2016 with regard to the eligibility for seeking exemption from routine exercise of transfer/rotational transfer:
(i) A Government employee who is a care-giver of dependent daughter/son/parents/spouse/brother/sister with Specified Disability, as certified by the certifying authority as a Person with Benchmark Disability as defined under Section 2(r) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 Digitally signed by DhanuRam Hansda DhanuRam DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6595, OID.2.5.4.65= 1335963871619011253g9LkE5GCXYJC4, Phone= ae67f2fe2825a3d09ab7e1f6c3245d45a1b89c1257419c6eb7e8dad5b 6505515, PostalCode=711112, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= c6a08597b4f862e0885e118c2835105ca8a490fa0a973f858e89b777a 0a70d71, CN=DhanuRam Hansda Hansda Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.06.23 17:39:15+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 10 o.a. 350.01380.2024 may be exempted from the routine exercise of transfer/rotational transfer subject to the administrative constraints.
(ii) The term "Specified Disability" as defined in the Schedule to the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, covers (1) Locomotor disability including leprosy cured person, cerebral palsy, dwarfism, muscular dystrophy and Acid attack victims (ii) Blindness (iii) Low-vision (iv) Deaf (v) Hard of hearing (vi) Speech and language disabilities (vii) Intellectual disability including specific learning disabilities and autism spectrum disorder (viii) Mental illness (ix) Disability caused due to: (a) Neurological conditions such as Multiple sclerosis and Parkinson's disease (b) Blood disorder- Haemophilia, Thalassemia and Sickle cell-disease and (x) Multiple disabilities (more than one of the above specified disabilities) including deaf blindness and any other category of disabilities as may be notified by the Central Government.
ⅲ) The term 'Specified Disability' as defined herein is applicable as grounds only for the purpose of seeking exemption from routine transfer/rotational transfer by a Government employee, who is a care-giver of dependent daughter/son/parents/spouse/brother/sister as stated in Para 3 (i)."
12. Since, the son of the applicant is certified to suffering from 70% intellectual disability, and his brain is adversely affected he can be considered to be suffering from a mental disorder. Hence, in terms of DoP&T OM dated 08.10.2018 quoted above, the applicant ought to have been exempted from transfer particularly keeping in view the fact that he is due to superannuate from service on 30.09.2026.
13. In view of the above discussion, the impugned transfer order dated 24.08.2024, qua the applicant, is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to allow the applicant to continue at his present place of posting i.e. Kolkata till the date of superannuation i.e. till 30.09.2026.
14. The O.A. is accordingly disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.
(Anindo Majumdar) Administrative Member drh Digitally signed by DhanuRam Hansda DhanuRam DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6595, OID.2.5.4.65= 1335963871619011253g9LkE5GCXYJC4, Phone= ae67f2fe2825a3d09ab7e1f6c3245d45a1b89c1257419c6eb7e8dad5b 6505515, PostalCode=711112, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= c6a08597b4f862e0885e118c2835105ca8a490fa0a973f858e89b777a 0a70d71, CN=DhanuRam Hansda Hansda Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.06.23 17:39:15+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0