Central Administrative Tribunal - Lucknow
Dr Ranjeet Kumar Prasad vs Central Ground Water Board on 1 September, 2025
CAT, Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/00340/2025 Ranjeet Kumar Prasad Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
LUCKNOW BENCH LUCKNOW
Original Application No. 00340 of 2025
Dated, this 1st day of September, 2025
Hon'ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative
Dr. Ranjeet Kumar Prasad, aged about 46 years, son of- Sri Uma
Shankar Prasad, Resident of -H.No.127, Kiran Enclave, Kursi Road,
Lucknow.
.....Applicant
By Advocate: Shri Praveen Kumar
VERSUS
1. Union of India, through its Secretary, Government of India, Ministry
of Jal Shakti, Department of Water Resources River Department and
Ganga Rejuvenation, Central Ground Water Board, Bhujal Bhawan,
NH-IV, Faridabad, Haryana 121001.
2. The Chairman, Central Ground Water Board, CHQ, Faridabad,
Haryana 121001.
3. The Director (Admn), Government of India, Ministry of Jal Shakti,
Department of Water Resources River Department and Ganga
Rejuvenation, Central Ground Water Board, Bhujal Bhawan, NH-IV,
Faridabad, Haryana 121001.
4. Regional Director, Central Ground Water Board, Northern Region,
Lucknow.
.....Respondents
By Advocate: Sri Yogesh Chandra Bhatt
ORDER (ORAL)
Per Hon'ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative In this case relating to transfer, the applicant seeks following reliefs:-
i. To quash the impugned orders dated 23.05.2025 & 23.06.2025 to the extent, it relates to the applicant (contained as Annexure No.A-1 & A-2 to this OA) with all consequential benefits.
ii. To allow the applicant to work at present place of posting and continue to pay him salary without any kind in interruption.
iii. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit, just, and proper under the circumstances of the case, may also be passed iv. Cost of the present case."Page 1 of 6
CAT, Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/00340/2025 Ranjeet Kumar Prasad Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
2. The facts of the case are that the applicant, while working on the post of Scientist D under the respondents, was transferred from Lucknow to Raipur vide order dated 23.05.2025. His representation dated 26.05.2025 for deferment of the transfer order was rejected by the respondents vide order dated 23.06.2025. Aggrieved, the applicant has preferred this OA.
3. The applicant's contention is that his elder son is studying in Class XII and his examination would be over in March - April, 2026 and that he made representation dated 26.05.2025 that he may be allowed to continue at the present place of posting till such time the examination of his elder son is over, but his representation has been rejected vide order dated 23.06.2025 without assigning any reason.
4. Per contra, the respondents state that transfer is not only an incident but an essential condition of service and that a transfer order cannot be treated as bad in law until and unless it is an outcome of any statutory provision (an Act or Rule) or by an authority not competent to do so. They contend that the applicant has all India transfer liability and that the transfer order has been issued in the organizational interest under paragraphs 7(i) and 7(iv) of the rotational transfer policy (RTP) issued vide letter dated 11.06.2021. The respondents highlight that as per paragraph 14 of RTP the maximum tenure for Group 'A' officers is 4 years while the applicant has already served for 10 years at Lucknow.
5. Heard both the parties. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is not seeking cancellation of his transfer; he is only seeking its deferment so that his elder son can complete Class XII examination for which only a few months are left. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the applicant has been transferred on administrative ground as his tenure of 4 years has been completed and that there is no provision for relaxation in the policy Page 2 of 6 CAT, Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/00340/2025 Ranjeet Kumar Prasad Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
for completion of Class X or XII education as highlighted in a Circular dated 25.11.2022 which states that '... it is to inform officers/officials that while sending their representation to CHQ they are mentioning that their son/daughter are studying in class 10th or 12th and thereby seeking relaxation to transfer. It is to mention here that in Rotational Transfer Policy-2021 placed on CGWB's Website there is no clause for relaxation of retention on transfer at the same place. It is hereby informed that officers/officials of CGWB should not mention such ground for retention at the same place while sending their representations on transfers."
6.1 The law relating to judicial review of transfer orders is well settled through a catena of cases adjudicated by Hon'ble Supreme Court. It has been held that transfer is an incident (Gujarat Electricity Board vs Atmaram Sungomal Poshani, AIR 1989 SC 1433) and a condition of service (State Bank of India vs Anjan Sanyal AIR 2001 SC 1748) and it should not be interfered with unless it violates statutory provision (Act or rule) or is issued by an authority not competent to do so (State of U. P. vs Gobardhan Lal AIR 2004 SC 2165) or is mala fide, including transfer in lieu of punishment (Somesh Tiwari vs Union of India & Ors AIR 2009 SC 1399).
6.2 The relevant clauses of the rotational transfer policy (RTP) brought out by the respondents are extracted below:
"7. Transfer on Administrative Ground:
(i) On functional requirement of the organization.
(ii) On completing the service tenure as given in Para 14.
(iii) On administrative exigencies e.g. disciplinary action under rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules 1965, ongoing vigilance proceeding against any officer/staff wherein his posting at same station will be detrimental to the ongoing proceedings till the closure of vigilance case.
(iv) Notwithstanding anything contained in this policy, the competent authority may transfer or post any officer/staff at any station or post, if necessary in public interest.
(v) Placement Committee for various grades of CGWB will be constituted in para 15(b) of this RTP. As far as possible, the competent authority will consider implementing the recommendations of the Placement Committee.
However, in case of exigencies of service or for any other reasons, to be Page 3 of 6 CAT, Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/00340/2025 Ranjeet Kumar Prasad Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
recorded in writing, the competent authority may take the suitable decision even without considering any recommendation from Placement Committee. ....
12. Cut off date and Tentative Schedule of transfer a. The cut-off date for calculating the period of residency at any place of posting will be 1st January of the year. An officer/employee for being covered under RTP should have completed prescribed tenure as on 1st January. The cut-off date for calculating two years in respect of officers superannuating will be calculated as on the last date of the month in which rotational transfer order is issued.
b. The rotation under RTP in each grade will be undertaken once in a year. As far as possible, transfer process shall be complied by the end March.
....
14. Service Tenure The Transfer Policy envisages a fixed tenure at a station before consideration of any transfer except transfer on compassionate grounds and on mutual transfer as given below:
Other Group A - Maximum service tenure for transfer in general except for North East and J&K Region - 4 years..."
(emphasis supplied) 6.3 It is noted that the transfer order dated 23.05.2025 has been issued under the RTP brought out by the respondents. Admittedly, the applicant has completed his tenure of 4 years at Lucknow and is due for transfer in terms of paragraph 14 of RTP.
6.4 While the respondents have taken a position that their transfer policy has no provision regarding education of children, it is observed that education of children in Class X and XII is a relevant consideration for the employees for making representations in regard to transfer and it is up to the Department concerned up to which extent such consideration can be accommodated within the contours of their transfer policy. It is in this context that the schedule of transfers mentioned in paragraph 12 of RTP acquires relevance in the present case. In terms of this schedule of transfers, the transfer process should be completed by the month of March (paragraph 12 b of RTP). However, it is noted that in the instant case, the transfer has been effected on 23.05.2025, well after the month of March stipulated in paragraph 12 b. It is observed that had the transfer Page 4 of 6 CAT, Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/00340/2025 Ranjeet Kumar Prasad Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
been effected as per schedule, the applicant would have got adequate notice for making arrangements for education of his son in Class XII without change of institution in the middle of the session. 6.5 It is also to be considered that the applicant has merely requested for deferment of his transfer by one year and not for its cancellation, and his representation has been rejected vide order dated 23.06.2025 summarily without assigning any reason. It is trite in law that reason is the heartbeat of an order. It is observed that rejection of representation without specifying reasons is hit by the vice of arbitrariness. 7.1 In view of the foregoing, the order dated 23.06.2025 rejecting the applicant's representation is quashed and set aside. 7.2 The applicant shall have the liberty to make a fresh representation to the respondents against the transfer order dated 23.05.2025 to the respondents within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and the respondents shall decide the such representation afresh, preferably within a period of two months from its receipt, by way of a reasoned and speaking order to be conveyed to the applicant forthwith.
7.3 The respondents shall not give effect to the transfer order dated 23.05.2025 in so far as it relates to the applicant till they decide the applicant's fresh representation as above.
7.4 If the applicant is aggrieved with the manner of disposal of his fresh representation, he shall have the liberty to approach this Tribunal. 7.5 This OA is disposed of in the above terms.
7.6 Pending MAs, if any, also stand disposed of.
7.7 The parties shall bear their own costs.
Page 5 of 6 CAT, Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/00340/2025 Ranjeet Kumar Prasad Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
(Pankaj Kumar) Member (A) warij Page 6 of 6