Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Nitesh Kohar vs M/O Finance, D/O Revenue on 9 April, 2026
1
Item No. 19/Court-6
O.A. No. 2917/2025
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No. 2917/2025
M.A. No. 5517/2025
M.A. No. 3227/2025
M.A. No. 3642/2025
Reserved on : 20.03.2026
Pronounced on : 09.04.2026
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S. Khati, Member (A)
Nitesh Kohar
Serving as UDC, Group 'C'
Aged about 34 years
S/o Late Sh. Joginder Singh
R/o Village Chhinoli, Post Office-Kharkhoda
Tehsil Kharkhoda, Distt. Sonipat
Haryana-131402.
... Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. M.K. Bhardwaj)
Versus
1. Union of India
through its Secretary
Ministry of Finance
Department of Revenue
North Block, New Delhi.
2. The Director
Directorate of Enforcement, Headquarters
Govt. of India
Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Road
New Delhi.
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Jalaj Agarwal)
Digitally signed by JYOTI JAIN
Date: 2026.04.09 17:29:42+05'30'
2
Item No. 19/Court-6
O.A. No. 2917/2025
ORDER
By virtue of the present Original Application (OA), the applicant is seeking implementation of the transfer order dated 14.05.2025, whereby he has been transferred from Chennai to Delhi. He has sought for the following reliefs in the OA:-
"(i) To quash and set aside the impugned order No. 163/2025 dated 27.05.2025 (A-1) and order F.No. Est-19/1/2024-
EST-HO dated 25.07.2025 (A-1A) and direct the respondents to implement the transfer order dated 14.05.2025/transfer the applicant to Delhi.
(ii) To declare the action of respondents in not implementing the transfer order of applicant dated 14.05.2025 as illegal and direct the respondent to relieve the applicant as per transfer order dated 14.05.2025.
(iii) To direct the respondents to transfer the applicant to Delhi as per his entitlement and in consonance with the transfer policy.
(iv) To allow the OA with costs.
(v) To pass any other further orders to this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
2. At the outset, learned counsel for the applicant drew my attention to the order of this Tribunal dated 12.08.2025, which reads as under:
"The applicant is working with the respondents as UDC, who has been transferred from Chennai Zonal Office-II to HQRs, Training vide order dated 14.05.2025. However, the transfer order has been kept in abeyance and cancelled vide the impugned orders dated 27.05.2025 and 25.07.2025, respectively.
Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the arguments made by the applicant's counsel and states that the respondents were entirely authorized to take such a decision in the administrative interest, and they have not violated any transfer policy prevailing in the organization, and no discrimination has been made against the applicant.Digitally signed by JYOTI JAIN
Date: 2026.04.09 17:29:42+05'30' 3 Item No. 19/Court-6 O.A. No. 2917/2025 During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the applicant has drawn my attention to the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.7308/2008 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.3516 of 2007 in the case of Somesh Tiwari vs. Union of India and Ors.), highlighting paras '19' and '20', which reads as under:
"19. Indisputably an order of transfer is an administrative order. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that transfer, which is ordinarily an incident of service should not be interfered with, save in cases where inter alia mala fide on the part of the authority is proved. Mala fide is of two kinds - one malice in fact and the second malice in law.
20. The order in question would attract the principle of malice in law as it was not based on any factor germane for passing an order of transfer and based on an irrelevant ground i.e. on the allegations made against the appellant in the anonymous complaint. It is one thing to say that the employer is entitled to pass an order of transfer in administrative exigencies but it is another thing to say that the order of transfer is passed by way of or in lieu of punishment. When an order of transfer is passed in lieu of punishment, the same is liable to be set aside being wholly illegal."
To strengthen the arguments, learned counsel for the respondents relies upon the decision rendered by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Tribunal at Ernakulam, in O.A. No.180/00248/2025 vide order dated 11.08.2025 titled as P Radhakrishnan vs. Union of India, represented by Secretary and Ors., which reads as under:
"43. As pointed out by the respondents, transfer is an incident of service. The applicant is having all India transfer liability. He had continued for long spells of service in the same office. He cannot have any vested right to continue in Kochi office. According to him, he should have been transferred to Chennai, if not to Srinagar. Such contentions are not available to an employee.
44. The assertion that Annexure-A9 was issued on the recommendations of the Civil Services Board makes it clear that the order was passed by a competent authority. The applicant could not make out any malafides in the order of transfer. It cannot be termed as punitive. The applicant has been posted in Srinagar in the existing vacancу.
45. The challenge against transfer will hold good only if it is issued by an incompetent authority, vitiated by malafides, in contravention of any statutory provision or to a post/vacancy other than the post held by the employee. Here, none of the grounds can hold good.Digitally signed by JYOTI JAIN
Date: 2026.04.09 17:29:42+05'30' 4 Item No. 19/Court-6 O.A. No. 2917/2025
46. To sum up, transfer is an incident of service. No one has any vested right to seek transfer to a particular place or to seek his retention in a particular station. It is the discretion of the employer to decide where the employee should work. Such a prerogative of the employer, ordinarily, is not subject matter of judicial review. The Court or Tribunal is not an appellate forum to assess the discretion exercised by the employer. On all these considerations, such a plea raised by the applicant cannot be upheld.
47. Before parting with, the belligerence and intolerance of the respondents against the O.A. as well as interim order passed by the Tribunal is expressed more than once in the reply statement. The tone and tenor of the reply statement is suggestive that the officers of the Enforcement Directorate have an assumed immunity from such orders. Averments in the reply stating that such interference would undermine institutional discipline, open floodgates for similar litigations etc. are reckless. I must say that such contentions by an organisation susceptible to discipline cannot be accepted in good taste. The ED is not above law or omnipotent. When such an application is filed before this Tribunal, which is the competent forum, do they expect that it should be thrown overboard or dismissed in limine? I take strong exception to the averments in the reply belittling the authority of the Tribunal. It was the outcome of the misdemeanor of the respondents that an employee like the applicant could continue in the same station for more than 28 years and in the same region for 30 years. Allowing an officer to continue in sensitive posts for unduly long spells will create vested interests. Vigilance Commission has issued directives against such postings. It is against Annexure-A3 also. The conduct of the respondents in not allowing the applicant to function as DD, FU-I after the interim order, attempt to appoint another in the place of the applicant through Annexure-A22, prove their belligerence and indifference. Suffice it to say that they ought to have guarded against making such reckless averments in the reply. The subsequent conducts are also not wholesome.
The Original Application is devoid of merits and is dismissed. Interim orders are vacated. Two sealed covers which are intact, shall be returned through the learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel. No costs."
Learned counsel for the respondents further relies upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition No. 7469/2012 vide order dated 22.07.2025 titled Jai Bhagwan Sangwan vs. UOI and Anr., highlighting paragraphs 18 and 19, which read as under:
Digitally signed by JYOTI JAIN
Date: 2026.04.09 17:29:42+05'30' 5 Item No. 19/Court-6 O.A. No. 2917/2025 "18. It cannot be said, in the facts of the present case, that the petitioner was at all justified in remaining away from duty from 5 July 2010 till 6 May 2011, even if, one were to ignore the period from 6 May 2011 till September 2011. The petitioner remained away for more than ten months, without any justification whatsoever.
19. The order dated 10 June 2010 of the High Court of Orissa is clear and categorical. It notes the fact that the petitioner had already been reverted from service before the order was passed. Keeping in mind this fact, the High Court consciously restricted the interim relief only to the aspect of posting. There was no stay of reversion. The petitioner never chose to challenge the said order or seek any modification thereof.
Having accepted the order as it was passed, there was no justification for the petitioner to presume that he would be entitled to continue as a Inspector." Copies of the judgments relied by both counsels are taken on record with advance copies to each side.
Let the counsel for the parties go through the same and assist this Tribunal on the next date of hearing. Counsel for the respondents shall also respond to the argument that if the respondents have transferred the applicant on compassionate grounds considering the peculiar family circumstances with specific reference to the medical conditions of the mother and spouse of the applicant, why they have cancelled the transfer order of the applicant on the next date of hearing."
3. The applicant was transferred to Chennai from Delhi on 21.08.2023 and subsequently he was transferred back to Delhi on his request on 14.05.2025, but not relieved by the Regional office at Chennai. As per the respondents, the applicant is not on duty since 01.04.2025 and, in between, his application for EOL has been dismissed by the respondents.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for applicant that the applicant has peculiar circumstances due to medical condition of his wife who is suffering from Schizophrenia (mental illness), his mother suffered paralytic attack (bed ridden) as well as serious Digitally signed by JYOTI JAIN Date: 2026.04.09 17:29:42+05'30' 6 Item No. 19/Court-6 O.A. No. 2917/2025 throat ailment (lump) and there is no one to take care his small child; and he made several representations (Annexures A-5 and A-6) in this regard but the same have not been considered by the respondents.
5. The primary contention of the applicant is that once the transfer order to the applicant has been issued by the respondents, he should have been relieved to join at his new place of posting at Delhi, particularly when he has been transferred to Delhi on humanitarian grounds considering the medical condition of his family, which is admitted by the respondents themselves in their counter affidavit. However, the order dated 14.05.2025, which reflect 15 names including the name of the applicant at serial no. 12 whereby he has been transferred out from Chennai Zonal Office-II to Headquarters Training Section, does not mention any specific ground.
6. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, the transfer orders affecting 42 similarly placed persons were issued on administrative grounds rather than for any other reason. He highlighted paras 13, 22 and 25 of their counter affidavit, which read as under:-
"13. In view of the above, it is evident that during the tenure of approximately 1 years and 10 months at Chennai Zonal Office- II, Shri Nitesh Kohar, UDC, remained on leave, including unauthorised absence, for nearly 1 year and 9 months.
22. That in response to the contents of the Para 4.11 of the OA it is submitted that the applicant rejoined duty on 14.10.2024 Digitally signed by JYOTI JAIN Date: 2026.04.09 17:29:42+05'30' 7 Item No. 19/Court-6 O.A. No. 2917/2025 and was granted Earned Leave (EL) from 25.10.2024 to 31.03.2025, on his request. However, his subsequent claim regarding the medical condition of his mother and the need for further leave lacks sufficient documentary evidence from a recognized medical institution. The medical papers dated 10.03.2025 were never submitted to the office in a timely or verifiable manner and were not supported by any CGHS- empaneled hospital documentation or reimbursement claims. It is also submitted that the applicant's leave application dated 25.03.2025 for further extension was neither approved nor sanctioned by the competent authority. Merely applying for leave does not grant the right to be absent from duty without awaiting formal sanction. Therefore, the issuance of Memorandum dated 29.04.2025 for unauthorized absence was fully justified and in accordance with conduct rules and leave regulations. The copy of memorandum dated 29.04.2025 is annexed here as Annexure R-2.
As regards the claim of applying for transfer under the Annual General Transfer process, it is submitted that the applicant was transferred from Chennai Zonal Office-II to the Training Section, Headquarters, New Delhi, considering his request solely on humanitarian grounds, vide Office Order (Estt.) No. 153/2025 dated 14.05.2025. The contentions raised in this para are self-serving and aimed at justifying continued absence from duty in disregard of official norms.
25. That in response to the contents of the para 4.15- Para 4.18 of the OA it is submitted that the applicant was transferred from Chennai Zonal Office-II to the Training Section, Headquarters, New Delhi, considering his request solely on humanitarian grounds, vide Office Order (Estt.) No. 153/2025 dated 14.05.2025. However, upon receiving information from the concerned zonal office regarding the issuance of Memorandum dated 29.04.2025 to the applicant for his unauthorized absence, and considering the sensitivity of the matter, the same was brought to the notice of senior officers. Accordingly, as a precautionary administrative measure, the said transfer order was kept in abeyance vide Office Order (Estt.) No. 163/2025 dated 27.05.2025. The copy of office order no. 163/2025 is annexed here as Annexure R-3. Subsequently, an email dated 24.07.2025 was received from Chennai Zonal Office-II informing that the applicant had not joined duty and had been on unauthorized absence since 03.06.2025, having left station without permission. The copy of email dated 24.07.2025 is annexed here as Annexure R-4. Further, it is essential to mention here that even after the issuance of the said abeyance order, the Applicant remained on unauthorized absence for around 02 months disregarding the official norms completely and that during his entire tenure of approximately 1 year and 10 months at Chennai Zonal Office-II, the applicant remained on sanctioned leave and unauthorized absence for a total of nearly 1 year and 9 months, which seriously hampered the functioning of the office.Digitally signed by JYOTI JAIN
Date: 2026.04.09 17:29:42+05'30' 8 Item No. 19/Court-6 O.A. No. 2917/2025 In view of these developments, his transfer order was cancelled vide Office Order (Estt.) No. 209/2025 dated 25.07.2025.
It is respectfully submitted that since the abeyance order dated 27.05.2025 was issued in respect of holding of transfer of the applicant in abeyance, thus, the ground of relieving of the applicant from Chennai has ceased to exist w.e.f. from 27.05.2025 and the applicant's plea for relieving are irrational and non-actionable and infructuous.
It is respectfully submitted that the applicant's transfer was kept in abeyance vide order dated 27.05.2025. Accordingly, the ground for his relieving from the Chennai office ceased to exist from the said date. Therefore, the applicant's reliance on the letter dated 07.06.2025 to seek relief in misplaced, irrational, and rendered infructuous, as no such abeyance order was made in respect of any other persons mentioned in letter dated
07.06.2025. Furthermore, the transfer order itself was subsequently cancelled on 25.07.2025, in view of the fact that a memorandum dated 29.04.2025 had been issued to the applicant by the Chennai office.
Even though the applicant has submitted representations as mentioned in the Para 4.17 of the said OA, however he continued to remain absent from the official duties which demonstrates dereliction of duty on part of the Applicant. Further averments made by the applicant that the respondent has violated the Transfer guidelines dated 07.06.2019 in relation to the employees who are caregivers to dependent family member with specified disability are entitled for transfer near to their native place are incorrect, baseless, and contrary to the official records. In this regard, the para 4.18 of the Transfer guidelines dated 07.06.2019 is reproduced below for clarity of facts;
"Employees who are care givers to dependent family members with Specified Disability, as certified by the certifying authority as a Person with Benchmark Disability may be exempted from the routine exercise of transfer subject to fulfilment of conditions as laid down in DOPT OM F.No. 42011/3/2014-Estt. (Res) dated
08.10.2018.". The copy of relevant extract of the transfer guidelines dated 07.06.2019 is annexed here as Annexure-5.
From the culled out guidelines it is evident that in terms of Clause 4.18 of the Transfer Guidelines the employees with dependents with Specified Disability may be exempted from routine exercise of transfer. The Applicant has failed to establish how the respondent have not complied with the transfer policy and which of his dependent is suffering from the Specified Disability.
Further the Applicant, being on unauthorized absence during his tenure in Chennai, had submitted representations seeking transfer on personal grounds. However, he did not submit any certificate, duly issued by the competent certifying authority, Digitally signed by JYOTI JAIN Date: 2026.04.09 17:29:42+05'30' 9 Item No. 19/Court-6 O.A. No. 2917/2025 to substantiate his claim that any of his dependent family members was suffering from a specified disability. It is pertinent to mention that no such certificate has been submitted by him till date. In the absence of the requisite documentary evidence, his request for exemption from the routine transfer exercise could not be considered under the provisions of the said DOPT O.Μ."
7. He submitted that subsequent to transfer order dated 14.05.2025, upon receipt of information regarding memorandum dated 29.04.2025, the transfer of the applicant was kept on hold vide order dated 27.05.2025. Despite that he remained on unauthorised absence, and accordingly, in its meeting dated 25.07.2025, the CSB recommended cancellation of his transfer which was carried out vide order dated 25.07.2025. He further submitted that there is no violation of the Transfer Policy and as per Clause 4.18 of the Transfer Guidelines, exemption from routine transfer is applicable only to employees having dependents with specified disability. However, the applicant has neither established non-compliance nor disclosed which dependent is suffering from such disability. Therefore, he is not entitled to any relief.
8. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the Judgment dated 22.07.2025 of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP No. 7469/2012 titled Jai Bhagwan Sangwan vs UOI & Anr., highlighting the following paras:
"18. It cannot be said, in the facts of the present case, that the petitioner was at all justified in remaining away from duty from 5 July 2010 till 6 May 2011, even if, one were to ignore the period from 6 May 2011 till September 2011. The petitioner Digitally signed by JYOTI JAIN Date: 2026.04.09 17:29:42+05'30' 10 Item No. 19/Court-6 O.A. No. 2917/2025 remained away for more than ten months, without any justification whatsoever.
19. The order dated 10 June 2010 of the High Court of Orissa is clear and categorical. It notes the fact that the petitioner had already been reverted from service before the order was passed. Keeping in mind this fact, the High Court consciously restricted the interim relief only to the aspect of posting. There was no stay of reversion. The petitioner never chose to challenge the said order or seek any modification thereof. Having accepted the order as it was passed, there was no justification for the petitioner to presume that he would be entitled to continue as an Inspector.
20. The non-cooperative attitude of the petitioner is also manifest from the fact that he never chose even to present himself in the inquiry proceedings following the chargesheet dated 20 December 2010.
21. The petitioner cannot seek to capitalize on the allowing of his writ petition, by the High Court of Orissa, on 6 May 2011. By then, the petitioner had already remained away from duty without leave or any other justification whatsoever, for over 10 months. The respondent, therefore, acted in accordance with law in permitting the petitioner to rejoin, in deference to the decision of the High Court, and in instituting disciplinary proceedings against him for unauthorized absence from 5 July 2010 onwards.
..... ..... .....
24. Ups and downs in service are a part of life. A person who has joined a uniformed service has to be ready to meet these exigencies. He cannot just walk away from his duty when placed in an uncomfortable position, or faced with a situation which is not palatable to him."
9. He has also placed reliance upon a recent Order dated 11.08.2025 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Tribunal at Ernakulam in OA No. 180/00248/2025 titled P. Radhakrishnan vs Union of India as well as Judgment in Abani Kanta Ray vs State of Orissa & Ors., 1995 Supp (4) SCC 169, wherein it was held that "It is a settled law that a transfer which is an incident of service is not to be interfered Digitally signed by JYOTI JAIN Date: 2026.04.09 17:29:42+05'30' 11 Item No. 19/Court-6 O.A. No. 2917/2025 with by the courts unless it is shown to be clearly arbitrary or vitiated by mala fides."
10. In rebuttal, the learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the order of this Tribunal in OA No. 2233/2017 (Pradeep Kumar Shrivastava vs CBI & Anr.) with OA No. 2236/2017 (Mukesh Prasad vs UOI & Ors.), dated 08.02.2018, highlighting paras 27, 28 and 30, which read as follows:
"27. It is on the basis of the aforementioned parameters that the validity of the impugned transfer of the applicant is required to be addressed. Undisputedly, the child and the wife of the applicant are disabled persons. They require special attention, high support, medicare, social and physical support even for their day to day activities. The applicant is the sole member in the family who is to provide them such kind of support and is thus a 'care-giver'. The transfer policy of the Government is meant for the Government servants whose circumstances are normal and not extraordinary. Here is a case where the applicant has extraordinary, rather abnormal circumstances. His request for transfer cannot be looked into under the normal circumstances. Special circumstances exist and have to be addressed differently. Special disease requires special treatment.
28. In the present case, shifting of the applicant would have definitely adverse impact on the child and wife of the applicant, particularly the child. Pudducherry being in South zone, the child would definitely feel language problem in interaction with his teachers and classmates. He will have to develop new relations in a new school both with teachers and students. Sanskriti being a very prestigious and advanced institute, there may be special educators for such disabled children. In any case, over the years the teachers may have understood the disability factor of the applicant's son and they may be in a better position to communicate and interact with him. The atmosphere at Delhi for study of the child of the applicant is conducive. He is undergoing treatment at Delhi and is being assessed and evaluated by an expert super specialty hospital. We are not informed that similar facilities on medical front would be available at Pudducherry. There may be doctors who may be able to treat such disability, but without the other support system, such treatment may not be an effective instrument. It is the total support system for such a disabled child, which includes the social atmosphere, the language, communication, interaction and various other aspects that matter for his rehabilitation, which are essential. Such support system may be lacking at Pudducherry. One Digitally signed by JYOTI JAIN Date: 2026.04.09 17:29:42+05'30' 12 Item No. 19/Court-6 O.A. No. 2917/2025 cannot take a chance with the new environment under the given circumstances.
xxx xxx xxx
30. In view of the factual circumstances and the position in law, we are of the view that the present applicants have to be given a different treatment than envisaged under the transfer policies of the respondents. The respondents have failed to take into consideration the circumstances mentioned by the applicants in their respective representations indicating disability of their children and spouse requiring special attention, care and high moral support. Mere consideration of the request without taking into consideration the circumstances and the policy of the Government of India, which is surely and definitely attracted in the present state of circumstances, the decision to transfer the applicants is not only against the statutory rights of the children and spouse of the applicants but against the public policy and the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and the policy guidelines dated 06.06.2014 and 17.11.2014."
11. He has also referred to the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Council of Scientific and Industrial Research & Anr. vs K.G.S. Bhatt & Anr., (1989) 4 SCC 635, wherein it has been ruled that where the Tribunal has rendered substantial justice, the higher court should not interfere (para 12).
12. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and carefully considered the pleadings/written synopsis and judgments placed on record.
13. The core issues for consideration in the present O.A. are:
(i) whether the applicant has a vested right to seek implementation of the transfer order dated 14.05.2025;Digitally signed by JYOTI JAIN
Date: 2026.04.09 17:29:42+05'30' 13 Item No. 19/Court-6 O.A. No. 2917/2025
(ii) whether the impugned orders dated 27.05.2025 and 25.07.2025 suffer from illegality, arbitrariness, or mala fides;
(iii) whether the applicant is entitled to relief in light of his conduct, particularly prolonged unauthorized absence.
14. It is a trite law that transfer is an incident of service and lies within the exclusive domain of the employer. An employee has no vested right either to remain at a particular station or to insist upon transfer to a place of his choice. Judicial interference is warranted only in limited circumstances, such as, where the order is vitiated by mala fides, issued by an incompetent authority, or is in violation of statutory provisions/rules.
15. A careful perusal of the record reveals that the transfer order dated 14.05.2025 was issued as part of an administrative exercise, however, before the same could be implemented, it has came to the notice of the Competent Authority that the applicant had remained on prolonged unauthorized absence and was also issued memorandum dated 29.04.2025 in this regard. The record further reveals that the applicant remained absent for substantial period of his tenure at Chennai and his leave applications were either not sanctioned or unsupported by requisite documentation. Even after the transfer order was kept in abeyance on 27.05.2025, he continued to remain absent without authorization. In these circumstances, the respondents took a conscious administrative decision first to keep the transfer in Digitally signed by JYOTI JAIN Date: 2026.04.09 17:29:42+05'30' 14 Item No. 19/Court-6 O.A. No. 2917/2025 abeyance and subsequently to cancel it vide order dated 25.07.2025. As per service rules, remaining unauthorisedly absent is not a matter of an employee's discretion or right, rather it is considered a serious act of misconduct or indiscipline. Therefore, such action is based on relevant considerations and cannot be termed as arbitrary or illegal.
16. The contention of the applicant that once a transfer order is issued, it must necessarily be implemented, is misconceived. A transfer order does not create any indefeasible or vested right, particularly when subsequent developments justify its reconsideration. Further, as regards the plea of compassionate grounds based on the medical condition of his family members, though such considerations deserve due attention, the applicant has failed to substantiate his claim in accordance with the applicable policy by producing requisite certification from a competent authority. In the absence of such material, no enforceable right accrues in his favour.
17. Moreover, equitable relief cannot be granted to a party who is himself in breach of service discipline. The applicant, having remained on prolonged unauthorized absence, cannot seek to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of this Tribunal.
18. The applicant has relied upon the decision of this Tribunal in OA No. 2233/2017 in Pradeep Kumar Shrivastava. Digitally signed by JYOTI JAIN Date: 2026.04.09 17:29:42+05'30' 15 Item No. 19/Court-6 O.A. No. 2917/2025 However, in that case, the Tribunal interfered in view of exceptional circumstances, where the dependents of the applicant were persons with certified disabilities requiring continuous care and specialized support and he was the sole caregiver. The claim was duly supported by adequate medical and documentary evidence and the transfer would have caused serious and demonstrable prejudice to the rehabilitation and care of the dependents. In contrast, in the present case, no such certified disability, as required under the applicable guidelines, has been established. The plea of medical hardship is not substantiated in the manner required under the policy framework; and more importantly, the conduct of the applicant is materially different, as he has remained on prolonged unauthorized absence, which has been duly recorded and acted upon by the respondents. Thus, the factual matrix of the present case is entirely different, and the ratio of OA No. 2233/2017 cannot be made applicable.
19. In view of the foregoing analysis, I am of the considered view that the applicant has no enforceable right to seek implementation of the transfer order dated 14.05.2025 as the impugned orders dated 27.05.2025 and 25.07.2025 are based on valid administrative considerations and are not vitiated by mala fides or illegality.
Digitally signed by JYOTI JAIN Date: 2026.04.09 17:29:42+05'30' 16 Item No. 19/Court-6 O.A. No. 2917/2025
20. Accordingly, the O.A. is dismissed being devoid of merit. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
21. In view of final order passed in the OA, all the pending MAs also stand disposed of.
(Dr. Anand S. Khati) Member (A) /jyoti/ Digitally signed by JYOTI JAIN Date: 2026.04.09 17:29:42+05'30'