Central Administrative Tribunal - Jabalpur
Chhavi Kumar Thakur vs Employees Providend Fund Organisation ... on 15 July, 2025
1 OA 200/601/2022
Reserved
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH
JABALPUR
Original Application No.200/601/2022
Jabalpur, this Tuesday, the 15th day of July, 2025
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AKHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
Chhavi Kumar Thakur, S/o Shri Kamlesh Kumar Thakur, aged about
45 years, Occupation - Senior Social Security Assistant, R/o House
No. A-302, Royal Home, Dr. Barat Compound, Napier Town, Russel
Chowk, Jabalpur (M.P.) - 482001, Mob.9752093724.
-Applicant
(By Advocate - Shri Sapan Usrethe)
Versus
1. Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Labour &
Employment, Government of India, Shram Shakti Bhawan, Rafi
Marg, New Delhi - 110001.
2. The Central Provident Fund Commissioner, EPFO Head Office,
Bhavish Nidhi Bhawan, 14 Bikaji Gama Place, New Delhi - 110066.
3. The Additional Central Provident Fund Commissioner, Zonal
Office, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, 59, Arera Hills, Bhopal - 462011.
4. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner - I, Zonal Office,
Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, 59, Arera Hills, Bhopal - 462011.
5. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner - I, Regional Office,
Jabalpur Vhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, Vijay Nagar, Jabalpur - 482002.
6. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner - II, Regional Office,
Sagour, Singhai Bhawan, Civil Lines, Sagour - 470001.
Page 1 of 10
ANUPA 2025.07.16
M 11:25:12
MISHRA +05'30'
2 OA 200/601/2022
7. Ajay Kumar Mehra, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner - I,
Zonal Office, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, 59, Arera Hills, Bhopal -
462011.
8. Rakesh Sahrawat, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner - I,
Regional Office, Jabalpur Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, Vijay Nagar,
Jabalpur - 482002.
- Respondents
(By Advocate -Shri J.K. Pillai for official respondents)
(Date of reserving the order:- 19.06.2025)
ORDER
The applicant is challenging the office order dated 01.07.2022 (Annexure A-11), so far as it pertains to the applicant, whereby he has been transferred from Regional Office (RO) Jabalpur to Sagar.
2. The facts of the case in brief, as stated by the applicant, are that the applicant is working as Senior Social Security Assistant at RO Jabalpur. The Employees Provident Fund Organization (EPFO) is a statutory body under Employees Provident Fund Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 under the administrative control of respondent No.1. The applicant submits that the competent authority to transfer the applicant from one region to another region is respondent No.3, i.e. Zonal Head of EPFO and the power to transfer the applicant do not vest with the respondent No.4, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, which has transferred the applicant.
Page 2 of 10
ANUPA 2025.07.16
M 11:25:12
MISHRA +05'30'
3 OA 200/601/2022
2.1 The Employees Provident Fund Staff Union, M.P. Office Bearers representatives of employees and employer Regional Provident Fund Commissioner has held conciliation and arrived at terms of rotational transfer policy for SSA relating to opening of Sub-Regional Office, Sagar and at that point of time employees were to be transferred on rotational basis from Sub-Regional Office, Jabalpur and other offices. The settlement dated 12.10.2007 (Annexure A-1) relating to rotational transfer for a period of one year and on availability of junior employees to be sent prior to senior employees. There was no transfer policy in EPFO of Group C/SSA/Sr. SSA/LDC/UDC cadre before issuance of impugned order dated 01.07.2022.
2.2 Earlier, the applicant was transferred from Regional Office Kandivali (Mumbai) in 2009 on the basis of spouse ground as his wife is working in West Central Railway and posted at Jabalpur. Subsequently, he was transferred to Sagar in the year 2012 and thereafter vide order dated 11.07.2016 (Annexure A-3), he was again transferred to Sagar, being the junior most, as per the said agreement. Vide order dated 02.08.2017 (Annexure A-4), the Sr. SSA, permanently posted at RO Jabalpur were sent back to their original place of posting at Jabalpur from Sub-Regional Office, Sagar.
Page 3 of 10
ANUPA 2025.07.16
M 11:25:12
MISHRA +05'30'
4 OA 200/601/2022
2.3 The applicant has been appointed as Joint Secretary of All India EPF Employees' Sangh (Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh), a registered Union and as per the circular dated 11.08.2003 (Annexure A-6) issued by the EPFO Headquarter, New Delhi, the office bearers of Union are exempted from transfer.
2.4 As per the directives of this Tribunal in Original Application No.200/135/2018 dated 03.08.2018, the respondents were to formulate rotational transfer guidelines. Since there were some discrepancies in the Transfer Policy, the same was challenged all over the India before the various Benches of this Tribunal. Thereafter, vide order dated 30.01.2025, a transfer policy was framed but still there were some shortfalls in the policy and, therefore, it was decided not to transfer Group C employee to other location. Now, as per the communication dated 29.04.2025, transfer from duty office is to be done on request basis except for administrative exigencies.
2.5 The rotational transfer from Regional Office Jabalpur to Sagar for one year is to be done strictly on the basis of junior to seniors while many of the juniors to the applicant have not been picked for transfer. Besides, the applicant has also stated the spouse ground and as per the standing instructions, he ought not to have been transferred.
3. Respondents Nos.1 to 8 have filed their reply stating as under: Page 4 of 10
ANUPA 2025.07.16 M 11:25:12 MISHRA +05'30' 5 OA 200/601/2022 3.1 Earlier the transfers were made from junior to senior but now this practice is stopped and transfers are being made on the basis of 'longest stay transferred first'. This policy is adopted from the year 2018 onwards after creating of Zone and the impugned order is issued on longest stay basis.
3.2 Transfer orders dated 01.07.2022 by the Zonal Office, Madhya Pradesh & Chhattisgarh dated 01.07.2022 were issued with the approval of the Additional Central Provident Fund Commissioner who has been authorised under Rule 5 of the Employees Provident Fund (Officers and Employees' Conditions of Service) Regulations, 2008 to transfer officials in the cadre of Group C. 3.3 Further the Head Office letter dated 05.10.2983 states that protection from transfer is available to office bearers of Union at federation level/Regional Office level and not Sub-Regional Office level. Prior to 2017, i.e. before upgradation or change in nomenclature of the Sub-Regional Offices to Regional Offices, the protection of the HO letter dated 05.10.1983 was only available to office bearers of Union at federation or regional level and that being so, after change of nomenclature, the effect of the letter dated 05.10.1983 will not be in force and made applicable to Regional Offices, which are under the jurisdiction of Zonal Offices. Moreover, the HO letter dated Page 5 of 10 ANUPA 2025.07.16 M 11:25:12 MISHRA +05'30' 6 OA 200/601/2022 05.10.1983 provides protection against transfer to maximum four office bearers of Union and the Union did not inform whether they have intimated four names of officer bearers to the competent authority to reap the benefit of exemption from transfer in terms of HO letter. It has also been submitted that AIEPFES (BMS) has not been granted recognition either at the level of Zonal Office (MP & CG) or at the level of Regional Office, Jabalpur. The AIEPFES (BMS) has not even applied for recognition under CCS (Recognition of Service Association) Rules, 1993.
3.4 No such settlement was made between the Management and the EPF Staff Union, MP regarding rotational transfer policy and no such office order was issued by the competent authority confirming the decision taken during the meeting on 12.10.2007.
4. During the pendency of this Original Application, the applicant has preferred an MA No.200/1361/2022 seeking amendment in the Original Application. Through the amendment application, the applicant has brought on record copy of bona-fide certificate in respect of his son who was studying in Class XII; documents relating to posting of his wife at Jabalpur; information sought under the RTI regarding the vacancy position at Jabalpur and Sagar and the order passed by this Tribunal in Original Application No.200/135/2018.
Page 6 of 10
ANUPA 2025.07.16
M 11:25:12
MISHRA +05'30'
7 OA 200/601/2022
5. The applicant has also filed rejoinder to the reply filed by the respondents in which he has refuted the submission made by the respondents in their reply. The applicant has reiterated that there is no theory of 'longest stay transferred first'. He further pointed out that the AIEFP Employees Sangh (BMS) is registered under the registration No.ALC/17/11091 dated 03.11.2016. He further highlighted that after stay by this Tribunal on the impugned transfer order, the respondents have issued an order dated 11.11.2022 followed by order dated 28.07.2022, whereby the applicant was subjected to move to Satna. This shows the malafide intention on behalf of the respondents.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and the documents available on record. Also gone through the written submissions supplied by both the rival parties.
7. It is noted that there was no transfer policy existed at the time when the impugned order dated 01.07.2022 (Annexure A-11) was issued. Apparently, the transfer of the employees of the EPFO were regulated as per the internal arrangement made between the Union and the Management for a limited period of one year. The agreement dated 12.10.2007, which according to the respondents is merely a notesheet, goes to show that the transfer was to be effected from junior to senior.
Page 7 of 10
ANUPA 2025.07.16
M 11:25:12
MISHRA +05'30'
8 OA 200/601/2022
Though the respondents have disputed that the agreement dated 12.10.2007 does not have any binding effect but apparently during the hearing of OA No.200/135/2018 on 03.08.2018, their own counsel had conceded that "no guidelines or scheme for a rotational transfer is in place and all the transfers between Jabalpur, Sagar, Gwalior, Bhopal & Indore is done as per internal arrangement between the Union and the Management and the same is done for a period of one years only for which T.A. and D.A. is paid." This stand of the respondents is clearly contrary to their earlier stand.
8. The Office Order dated 01.07.2022 (Annexure A-11), which according to the respondents has been issued in administrative exigency, does not say so as the officials at Sr. Nos.1 to 6 have been transferred to Jabalpur at their own request while the persons at Sr. Nos.7 to 9 are transferred to Sagar. The order reveals that the posting of the officials to Sagar is for a limited period of one year. This implies that the terms and conditions made in the agreement dated 12.10.2007 have been resorted to. Being such position, the spirit of the agreement was required to be followed in toto and not in isolation as it is the case of the applicant that transfers were to be effectuated on the basis of seniority, i.e. in order of junior to senior whereas many of his Page 8 of 10 ANUPA 2025.07.16 M 11:25:12 MISHRA +05'30' 9 OA 200/601/2022 juniors have been left aside. This pick and choose methodology has not been explained by the respondents.
9. The term 'longest stay transferred first' does not find place in any of the documents placed on record by the respondents and it is for the first time this concept has been brought on record in their reply. The respondents state that this term is adopted from the year 2018 onwards (after creation of Zone). However, the fact of the matter is that there was no transfer policy as on 01.07.2022 and, hence, implication of the term 'longest stay transferred first' does not have any rationality.
10. The information supplied to the applicant under the RTI filed as Annexure A-18 with MA No.200/1361/2022 reveals that request of few officials for posting at Sagar have not been acceded to by the Committee assigning the reason that there is no vacancy position at Sagar while the minutes of the meeting of the committee reveals that against the 87 sanctioned strength of SSAs at RO, Jabalpur, only 60 SSAs are posted. I have not been made to understand as to why so much weightage has been given to RO, Sagar in which place number of staffs have already been posted. It clearly does not appear to be a case of administrative exigency as the posting of the applicant at Jabalpur in place of Sagar would not cause any hardship to the Page 9 of 10 ANUPA 2025.07.16 M 11:25:12 MISHRA +05'30' 10 OA 200/601/2022 Department as admittedly there are less numbers of SSAs working in Jabalpur against the total sanctioned post in comparison to Sagar.
11. In view of the facts and circumstances of this case, the impugned order dated 01.07.2022 (Annexure A-11) qua the applicant is quashed and set aside. However, as apprised by learned counsel for the parties during the course of the argument that now the transfer policy has since been framed, the respondents are at liberty to issue a fresh transfer order, in accordance with their policy.
12. Accordingly, this Original Application is allowed. The interim order dated 06.07.2022 stands merged in this final order. No order as to costs.
(Akhil Kumar Srivastava)
Judicial Member
am
Page 10 of 10
ANUPA 2025.07.16
M 11:25:12
MISHRA +05'30'