Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Satish Kumar Badhalia vs Defence on 7 April, 2025
1
O.A. No. 2161/2024
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH
O.A. No.2161/2024
Reserved on: 04.04.2025
Pronounced on: 07.04.2025
HON'BLE SHRI AJAY PRATAP SINGH, MEMBER (J)
Satish Kumar Badhalia
S/o late Shri Ram Badhalia,
Aged about 51 years,
Residing at H.No. RZ-50, Bharam Puri,
Pankha Road (PO-Nangal Raya)
New Delhi - 110 046.
...Applicant
-Versus-
1. Union of India through the Secretary,
Ministry of Defence,
South Block,
New Delhi - 110 001.
2. The Directorate General of Ordinance Services (OS-8C)
Master Gen. of Ordinance Branch, B Wing,
Room No.109, Sena Bhawan,
IHQ of MoD (Army),
New Delhi - 110 011.
3. The Directorate General of Ordinance Services (OS-20),
Master Gen. Ordinance Branch,
D-II Wing, Room No.109, Sena Bhawan,
IHQ of MoD (Army),
New Delhi - 110 011.
4. The Lieutenant Colonel,
Central Vehicle Depot now VSD,
Delhi Cantt,
New Delhi - 110 010.
5. The Officer-in-Charge,
Army Ordinance Corps Records,
Sikandrabad - 500 015.
...Respondent
For Applicant: Mr. Arun Kanwa, Advocate.
For Respondents: Ms. Neelima Rathore, Senior Panel Counsel.
2
O.A. No. 2161/2024
ORDER
AS PER AJAY PRATAP SINGH, MEMBER JUDICIAL:
1. Heard the parties with consent.
2. Applicant is working as LHF at Vehicle Sub-group Depot, Delhi, by means of this Application invoked jurisdiction of this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, being aggrieved by transfer/posting Order dated 27.05.2023, dated 14.02.2024 and relieving Order dated 04.05.2024, whereby the applicant has been transferred from VSD, New Delhi to 26, AMN Coy and relieved to join at 26 AMN Coy.
FACTS IN BRIEF
3. Briefly stated facts as adumbrated by the applicant in nutshell that the applicant is a part of the firefighting staff working as LHF "A" at Vehicle Sub-group Depot (in short- VSD, Delhi), Cantt., Ministry of Defence, Delhi. Applicant is suffering from prolonged Asthma, Hypertension, Sleep Study, Spine and Knee problems from 2015. Due to health problems, he has given up his promotion and retained in CVD Delhi. Notification dated 21.05.2019 issued for disbandment of CVD Delhi and Ordinance Sub-group VSD, New Delhi created. At present applicant is working as LHF "A" in VSD Delhi and sanctioned strength of LHF in VSD Delhi has now been reduced from 16 to 02.
4. It is also the case of the applicant as set out in the OA that Ministry of Defence issued a Draft dated 30.01.2020 (Annexure A-4) stating that the Committee has decided that all the Group "C" civilian employee of Indian Army affected by disbandment of establishment may be adjusted to same/nearby stations, within 50 kms radius. The applicant filed representation dated 19.04.2024 for change of his posting Order dated 27.05.2023 on medical grounds and same has not been considered.
5. Per contra, respondents have contested the claim of the applicant by filing counter-reply affidavit that applicant was initially appointed on 22.02.2001 as LHF in CVD Delhi now VSD-Delhi. All the employees of Army Ordinance Corps signed All India Field 3 O.A. No. 2161/2024 Service Liability Certificate at the time of issuing appointment order to the effect that they can be transferred/adjusted in AOC Units on All India basis.
6. Respondents also averred in the W.S. that on disbandment posting carried out as per seniority and maximum employees have been adjusted in Delhi location. The senior-most employees of above 57 years posted in tenure Units (High Altitude Area) given priority to retain in Delhi station and remaining employees have been posted within 50 kms distance subject to availability of vacancies and due to non-availability of vacancies, employees have been posted out beyond 50 kms as per revised policy.
7. Applicant has been posted from VSD Delhi to 26 AMN Coy due to non-availability of vacancy of LHF in Delhi station or at nearest Units within 50 kms. There is no vacancy of LHF available in VSD Delhi or within 50 kms distance and, hence, the applicant has been posted to 26 AMN Coy. The applicant has not joined after posting Order dated 04.05.2024 and the said Unit is facing difficulties due to non-availability of manpower.
8. Respondents have also made specific averments in the paragraph 6 of WS that due to non-availability of vacancy of LHF in VSD Delhi, posting of applicant in Delhi not feasible and application/representation of the applicant has been turned unactioned, not acceded to. Applicant has not forwarded any choice for posting and there is no vacancy available in Delhi station and posted to nearest Unit, where vacancy of LHF is available, 26 AMN Coy has acute deficiency of five LHFs against authorization of sixteen.
9. Rejoinder has been filed by the applicant stating that the respondents have not considered his representation dated 19.04.2024 to cancel the posting order, whereas applicant is suffering from Asthma, hypertension, sleep study, spine and knee problems and undergoing treatment. So also reiterated averments made in the OA.
4 O.A. No. 2161/2024SUBMISSIONS
10. Learned counsel for applicant argued that applicant has been transferred from VSD, Delhi to 26, AMN Coy, Jaisalmer due to disbandment of Ordinance Depot in Delhi, whereas representation dated 19.04.2024 based on prolonged illness and medical grounds has not been considered. So also as per Draft dated 30.01.2020 (Annexure A-4), it had been decided that all the Group "C" civilian employees affected by disbandment may be adjusted to same or nearby station within 50 kms radius. Respondents have not decided representation of the applicant and violated the principles of natural justice and presses for final disposal on merits.
11. Learned counsel for respondents vehemently contended that though no notice was issued in the OA and counter reply and rejoinder have been filed and matter be decided on merits. Applicant has not joined at place of posting, whereas already stands relieved on 04.05.2024 pursuant to transfer Order dated 14.02.2025 and 27.05.2023 so far relates to applicant. Ms. Neelima Rathore, Senior Panel Counsel appearing for respondents further argued that specific averments made in para 6 and in para-wise reply to para 4.12 of counter reply due to non-availability of vacancies of LHF in VSD Delhi, application of applicant to consider posting at Delhi has not been acceded to. Respondents have issued revised, the draft dated 30.01.2020 (Annexure A-4) vide revised Draft and document annexed at page 46 of the OA. The Defence Secretary, has issued revised policy and it has been decided that surplus Group "C" defence civilian employees can be posted beyond 50 kms in those cases not possible within 50 kms due to non-availability of suitable vacancies. Applicant has no vested right to seek posting of his own choice and after consideration of representation for cancellation of posting, proposal turned down on 09.07.2024. Ms. Rathore placed heavy reliance on case of S.K. Nausad Rahaman Vs. Union of India in Civil Appeal No.1243/2022 vide judgment dated 10.03.2022, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that postings of an employee are governed by exigencies of service, employees have no fundamental right to claim transfer or posting of their choice. So also relied on 5 O.A. No. 2161/2024 Tribunal's Order dated 04.04.2024 passed in OA No.455/2023 [Jaipur Bench, Jaipur).
12. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.
13. This is a trite law that scope of judicial interference in transfer/posting matters in exercise of power of judicial review is limited to issue of violation of statutory rules, malafide exercise of power and posting order is without jurisdiction
14. Applicant is a part of firefighting staff and is working as LHF "A" at Vehicle Sub-group Depot (in Short VSD Delhi) Cantt, Ministry of Defence. The VSD has been formulated after disbandment of earlier CVD, Delhi. Thereafter Ordinance Depot, Shakurbasti and VSD were also disbanded as per policy decision dated 18.11.2022. The disbandment process carried out and postings have been carried out as per seniority and senior-most employees above 57 years and employees posted in high altitude area were given priority to retain in Delhi station.
15. Applicant was initially appointed as LHF in CVD Delhi now VSD Delhi on 22.02.2001 and posted at VSD Delhi. Undisputedly, applicant and all the employees of AOC had signed All India field service liability certificate at the time of appointment in the interest of organization. Applicant holds the post with all India transfer/posting liability on all India basis of AOC Units. There is no vacancy available within 50 kms in Delhi and as per revised policy and AOC Records Office instructions dated 10.05.2022 for posting of employees. The applicant has been transferred and posted to 26 AMN Coy, Jaiselmer due to disbandment of Ordinance Depot in Delhi, nearest distance to Delhi station. There is no vacancy of LHF available in VSD Delhi or within 50 kms distance to post applicant on place of own choice.
16. Present OA has been filed challenging posting/transfer order dated 14.02.2024, re-deployment of firefighting staff of VSD Delhi and OD Shakurbasti dated 27.05.2023 and posting Order dated 04.05.2024, whereby applicant has been relieved to report at place of posting at 26 AMN Coy. But applicant has not joined till date in 6 O.A. No. 2161/2024 spite of order issued to relieve on 04.05.2024. The applicant has been continuing at Delhi for more than eleven months and Arm Ordinance Corps Unit as per respondents facing difficulties due to non-availability of manpower and there is no vacancy available at VSD Delhi.
17. Learned counsel for applicant much emphasized that applicant would be satisfied if direction is issued to decide his pending representation for cancellation of transfer/posting as applicant is suffering from hypertension, asthma, sleep study, spine and knee problems and undergoing treatment.
18. Respondents have stated in the counter reply that application for posting of applicant in VSD Delhi on medical grounds has been considered but due to non-availability of vacancy of LHF in VSD Delhi, posting at Delhi is not possible and application of the applicant was turned down and not acceded to. So also, Ms. Neelima Rathore, learned senior panel counsel for Central Government has referred to the record that on 19.04.2024, applicant submitted request/representation to OIC, AOC, Records for cancellation/change of station posting order on medical grounds. The AOC Records, examined the application dated 19.04.2024 and case of applicant in detail and posting/transfer of applicant to 26 AMN Coy on disbandment basis issued vide Office letter dated 27.05.2024 duly approved by IHQ of MoD (Army) dated 08.05.2023, on 18.05.2024 VSD-Delhi Unit was also informed. So also, Integrated HQ of MoD (Army) vide letter dated 01.07.2024 considered representation of applicant and turned down as there is no vacancy available in VSD. The applicant is surplus personnel and re-deployed as per policy issued by the competent authority. The respondents have considered pending representation dated 19.04.2024 and AOC Records as well as Integrated Headquarter of Ministry of Defence (Army) vide letter dated 18.05.2024 and 01.07.2024 respectively, categorically stated that there is no vacancy available in VSD, Delhi Cantt. The applicant is surplus individual and not been deployed and retained, may invite major financial & Accounting irregularities. The applicant's representation 7 O.A. No. 2161/2024 along with medical documents examined by IHQ of MoD (Army) and AOC Records and has been rejected on 09.07.2024.
19. I am of the opinion that applicant is surplus employee posted vide letter dated 27.05.2023 and directed to be relieved on 04.05.2024 to report to 26 AMN Coy on disbandment basis in accordance with policy applicable for all employees. So also, respondents considered the representation of applicant and applicant also failed to establish infringement of any statutory rule, malafide and impugned orders being without jurisdiction, present OA lacks merit, no interference is called for. Transfer/posting orders do not give rise to any civil consequences and principles of natural justice not attracted.
20. The respondents/administrative authorities have examined the hardships of the applicant while dealing with his representation dated 19.04.2024based on medical grounds. Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments held that question of hardship is something to which administrative authorities are to address themselves and the order of transfer is not liable to be struck down.
21. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India Versus S.L. Abbas, reported in (1993) 4 SCC 357, Their Lordships in paragraph 6, 7 and 8 held as:-
"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. It is not the case of the respondent that the order of his transfer is vitiated by mala fides on the part of the authority making the order, -- though the Tribunal does say so merely because certain guidelines issued by the Central Government are not followed, with which finding we shall deal later. The respondent attributed "mischief" to his immediate superior who had nothing to do with his transfer. All he says is that he should not be transferred because his wife is working at Shillong, his children are studying there and also because his health had suffered a setback some time ago. He relies upon certain executive instructions issued by the Government in that behalf. Those instructions are in the nature of guidelines. They do not have statutory force.
7. Who should be transferred where, is a matter for the appropriate authority to decide. Unless the 8 O.A. No. 2161/2024 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. 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. The guidelines say that as far as possible, husband and wife must be posted at the same place. The said guideline however does not confer upon the Government employee a legally enforceable right.
8. The jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal is akin to the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in service matters. This is evident from a perusal of Article 323-A of the Constitution. The constraints and norms which the High Court observes while exercising the said jurisdiction apply equally to the Tribunal created under Article 323-A. (We find it all the more surprising that the learned Single Member who passed the impugned order is a former Judge of the High Court and is thus aware of the norms and constraints of the writ jurisdiction.) The Administrative Tribunal is not an appellate authority sitting in judgment over the orders of transfer. It cannot substitute its own judgment for that of the authority competent to transfer. In this case the Tribunal has clearly exceeded its jurisdiction in interfering with the order of transfer. The order of the Tribunal reads as if it were sitting in appeal over the order of transfer made by the Senior Administrative Officer (competent authority).
[Emphasis supplied]
22. In case of Rajendra Singh and others Versus State of UP & Ors., (2009) 15 SCC 178, Their Lordships in paragraph 8 held as:-
"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).
[Emphasis supplied]
23. In case of Shilpi Bose Versus State of Bihar, (1991) Supp. 2 SCC 659, Hon'ble Supreme Court was seisin with transfer of lady 9 O.A. No. 2161/2024 teachers to place where their husbands were posted on their own requests. Challenge of displaced teachers at the transferred places was not sustained. Their Lordships upheld the transfer orders and observed as:-
"4. In our opinion, the Courts should not interfere with a transfer Order which are made in public interest and for administrative reasons unless the transfer Orders are made in violation of any mandatory statutory Rule or on the ground of malafide. A Government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one place or the other, he is liable to be transferred from one place to the other. Transfer Orders issued by the competent authority do not violate any of his legal rights. Even if a transfer Order is passed in violation of executive instructions or Orders, the Courts ordinarily should not interfere with the Order instead affected party should approach the higher authorities in the Department. If the Courts continue to interfere with day-to-day transfer Orders issued by the Government and its subordinate authorities, there will be complete chaos in the Administration which would not be conducive to public interest. The High Court over looked these aspects in interfering with the transfer Orders.
[Emphasis supplied]
24. In case of Union of India Versus Janardhan Debanath, (2004) 4 SCC, Their Lordships in paragraph 14 held:-
"The question whether the respondents could be transferred to a different division is a matter for the employer to consider depending upon the administrative necessities and the extent of solution for the problems faced by the administration. It is not for the Supreme Court to direct one way or the other. It is not for this Court to direct one way or the other. The judgment of the High Court is clearly indefensible and is set aside. The writ petitions filed before the High Court deserve to be dismissed which we direct. The appeals are allowed with no order as to costs."
[Emphasis supplied]
25. What comes out loud and clear that Ordinance Depot, Shakurbasti and Vehicle Sub-group Dept, Delhi Cantt were disbanded and in accordance with seniority as per policy, surplus employees posted. The applicant has been posted to 26 AMN Coy, Jaisalmer nearest Unit-deficient Unit, where vacancy of LHF is available. Impugned Orders issued on disbandment basis and 10 O.A. No. 2161/2024 representation with connected medical documents considered by AOC Records and Integrated H.Q. of MoD (Army), New Delhi vide letters dated 18.05.2024 and 01.07.2024 respectively. Transfer and posting of applicant is an incident of public service in administrative exigencies and he has no vested right to claim posting at place of his own choice based on hardships. The impugned orders have not affected any service conditions.
CONCLUSION
26. For the reasons stated hereinabove and legal preposition settled by catena of judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court. The applicant has failed to establish infringement of any legal right, violation of any statutory rules of transfer/posting, malafide exercise of power or impugned Posting/Transfer Order dated 14.02.2024, order dated 27.05.2023 [Annexure A-1 (Colly)] and posting order dated 04.05.2024 from Fire Bridge to 26 AMN Coy (Annexure A-2) are without jurisdiction.
27. The impugned Posting/Transfer Order dated 14.02.2024, order dated 27.05.2023 [Annexure A-1 (Colly)] and posting order dated 04.05.2024 from Fire Bridge to 26 AMN Coy (Annexure A-2) so far relates to applicant, in the present OA are upheld, do not suffer from any infirmity and remain unassailable, so also not affected any of the service conditions of the applicant.
28. Resultantly, the Original Application being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed.
29. There shall be no order as to costs.
30. As a sequel thereof, pending Miscellaneous Application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(Ajay Pratap Singh) Member (J) /na/