Central Administrative Tribunal - Patna
Sujata Ranjan vs South Eastern Railway on 2 December, 2025
-1- OA/051/00369/2025
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PATNA BENCH
CIRCUIT BENCH AT RANCHI
OA/051/00369/2025
Reserved on: 20.11.2025
Pronounced on: 02.12.2025
CORAM
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JOHARI, MEMBER (J)
HON'LE MR. KUMAR RAJESH CHANDRA, MEMBER (A)
Sujata Ranjan, Daughter of Sri Sudhakar Prasad Shrivastava, aged
about 39 years, residing at Devi Mandap Road, Ratu Road, Ranchi,
PO- Hehal, PS- Sukhdeonagar, District- Ranchi (Jharkhand).
........Applicant.
- By Advocate(s) :- Shri M.P. Dixit
-Versus-
1. The Union of India, through the General Manager, South
Eastern Railway, 11 Garden Reach Road, PO+PS - Kolkata,
Kolkata-700043.
2. Divisional Railway Manager, South Eastern Railway, Ranchi, PO-
Hatia, PS - Jagarnathpur, District- Ranchi, Pin-834003.
3. Sr. DEE/TRD/RNC, South Eastern Railway, Ranchi, PO-Hatia, PS-
Jagarnathpur, District - Ranchi, Pin- 834003.
4. Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer, Ranchi, PO-Hatia, PS-
Jagarnathpur, District- Ranchi, Pin- 834003.
5. Senior Section Engineer/RC/RNC, South Eastern Railway, Ranchi,
P.O.- Hatia, PS- Jagarnathpur, District- Ranchi, Pin- 834003.
.......Respondents.
By Advocate(s) :- Shri Amit Sinha, Addl. Standing Counsel
Digitally signed by SURYAROOP KABI
SURYAROOP DN: C=IN, O="CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, PATNA BENCH", OU=govt, Phone=
4f29e5d1dcfbce8b0afeb88c04f365f9394705d2f5ab832fd6c09841fe7c96ed, PostalCode=800001,
S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER=
20d9f640c92cc412e72af8cc564e5b863168ef75a1eadc65bafc0b4758f5dd33, CN=SURYAROOP
KABI
KABI
Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Location:
Date: 2025.12.02 17:48:52+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
-2- OA/051/00369/2025
ORDER
Per Kumar Rajesh Chandra, A.M.:- This OA has been filed by the applicant seeking the following relief:-
"(i) That petitioner prays for issuance of appropriate order(s), direction(s), in the nature of certiorari for quashing the office order No. PERS/RNC/289/2025 dated 23.04.2025 issued by the Respondent No. 4.
(ii) The releasing order dated 08.05.2025 (Annexure/4) and subsequent order dated 09.05.2025 (Annexure/5) issued by the Respondent No. 3 and 4 whereby and whereunder petitioner has been released from Ranchi Division on 09.05.2025 after working hour with direction to report DRM(P)/Delhi Division for further posting be quashed.
(iii) The Respondents be directed to consider the case of the petitioner sympathetically and to allow the petitioner to join at RDSO/Lucknow for the post of Senior Section Engineer Electrical Inspection in respect of Assistant Personnel Officer/NG-II, RSDO/Lucknow letter dated 14.05.2025 for better and prospective career.
(iv) Pass such other order/orders, as your Lordship may deem fit and proper."
2. The brief facts of the case, as per the applicant, are as follows:-
(i) The applicant was initially appointed on 07.08.2009 as a Junior Engineer in Dhanbad Division of EC Railway. Thereafter, on her request she was transferred to Ranchi Division of SE Railway on 10.10.2012. On 01.07.2019 the applicant was promoted as Sr. Section Engineer, Ranchi Division in Electrical Traction Distribution Department.
(ii) It is contended that the applicant on 04.07.2024 applied for own request transfer at lower seniority in Northern Railway, Delhi due to her personal reasons which was approved on 23.04.2025 (Annexure-1) after 10 months. But due to ill health of applicant's mother she applied for 5 days leave from 14.04.2025 to 18.04.2025. However, three days leave was sanctioned from 14.04.2025 to 16.04.2025.
(iii) The applicant then filed a representation on 08.05.2025 (Annexure-3) requesting respondent no. 3 for withholding her transfer citing her family compulsion to stay at Ranchi for a few months. It is Digitally signed by SURYAROOP KABI SURYAROOP DN: C=IN, O="CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, PATNA BENCH", OU=govt, Phone= 4f29e5d1dcfbce8b0afeb88c04f365f9394705d2f5ab832fd6c09841fe7c96ed, PostalCode=800001, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 20d9f640c92cc412e72af8cc564e5b863168ef75a1eadc65bafc0b4758f5dd33, CN=SURYAROOP KABI KABI Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.12.02 17:48:52+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
-3- OA/051/00369/2025 alleged by the applicant that the respondents without considering the representation of the applicant released the applicant from her controlling unit on 08.05.2025 (Annexure-4) and directed her to report respondent no. 4 on 09.05.2025 for finally releasing to DRM(P)/DLI/NR. The respondents finally released the applicant from Ranchi Division after working hour with direction to reportDRM(P)/Delhi Division for further posting.
(iv) It is further alleged by the applicant that despite applicant's inability to report to Sr. Div. Personnel Officer, Ranchi on 09.05.2025 and duly informing the same to respondent no. 3 and 4, the Personnel Department despite absence of applicant from the office on 09.05.2025 issued an order forcibly releasing the applicant from Ranchi Division to Delhi Division illegally without obtaining signature and fresh photograph of the applicant, using the photograph and signature of her old HRMS application (Annexure-6).
(v) It is further submitted by the applicant that when the process of own request transfer of applicant to Delhi was pending the applicant on 06.02.2025 applied against the notification dated 31.12.2024 of RDSO/Lucknow for the post of Sr. Section Engineer Electrical Department (External Cadre) and No Objection Certificate and Vigilance Clearance was sent by the department through proper channel on 29.04.2025 and on 14.05.2025(Annexure-7) an appointment proposal letter was issued by the Assistant Personnel officer/NG-II. RSDO/Lucknow addressed to the Respondent No. 4 directing the applicant to report to this office immediately on the said post within a period of two months from the date of issue of above appointment proposal letter.
(vi) Applicant further states that though she applied for own request transfer to Delhi on 04.07.2024 for personal circumstances but presently the said circumstance does not exist and on her application for deputation at RSDO/Lucknow for the post of Sr. Section Engineer Electrical Inspection (External cadre) appointment proposal letter was issued to the applicant on 14.05.2025. It is further contended by applicant that she will not lose her seniority and further promotion opportunities for the said deputation post at RDSO Lucknow but in case Digitally signed by SURYAROOP KABI SURYAROOP DN: C=IN, O="CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, PATNA BENCH", OU=govt, Phone= 4f29e5d1dcfbce8b0afeb88c04f365f9394705d2f5ab832fd6c09841fe7c96ed, PostalCode=800001, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 20d9f640c92cc412e72af8cc564e5b863168ef75a1eadc65bafc0b4758f5dd33, CN=SURYAROOP KABI KABI Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.12.02 17:48:52+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
-4- OA/051/00369/2025 of transfer to Delhi, she will be reverted to bottom seniority as Junior Engineer/TRD to Delhi Division, Northern Railway.
(vii) The applicant then filed a detailed representation dated
11.05.2025 (Annexure/8) stating all the facts and circumstances and further requesting to consider her case sympathetically, but no positive response was received. She again filed a detailed representation before respondent no. 4 on 16.05.2025 (Annexure-9) stating the fact that her appointment proposal letter for appointment in RDSO/Lucknow has been issued on 14.05.2025(Anneuxre-7) and that she is willing to accept all the conditions mentioned in the appointment letter of RSDO/Lucknow as getting an opportunity to work in a prestigious institution like RDSO will be a matter of pride. In the said representation she mentioned that she is unwell and her mother is also under treatment at Ranchi after surgery for which she has to stay at Ranchi for at least one month. She further requested to respondent no. 4 to cancel theself-request transfer order and relieve her for appointment on the post of Senior Section Engineer at RDSO/Lucknow after one month.
(viii) While submitting that the impugned orders dated 08.05.2025 (Annexure-4) and 09.05.2025 (Annexure-5) passed by the respondents no. 3 and 4 are illegal, arbitrary, unlawful and violation of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India the applicant has filed the instant OA.
3. In the written statement the respondents have mentioned that in response to applicant's online application for Inter-Railway transfer citing family reasons approval of competent authority was obtained vide office order dated 23.04.2025. On the basis of office order dated 23.04.2025 the applicant was informed well in advance regarding her impending release from Ranchi Division and accordingly, after 15 days from the date of issue of office order release letter was served to applicant on 08.05.2025 but she refused to acknowledge the receipt of the same and instead submitted an Digitally signed by SURYAROOP KABI SURYAROOP DN: C=IN, O="CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, PATNA BENCH", OU=govt, Phone= 4f29e5d1dcfbce8b0afeb88c04f365f9394705d2f5ab832fd6c09841fe7c96ed, PostalCode=800001, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 20d9f640c92cc412e72af8cc564e5b863168ef75a1eadc65bafc0b4758f5dd33, CN=SURYAROOP KABI KABI Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.12.02 17:48:52+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
-5- OA/051/00369/2025 application to withhold the transfer for few months citing her changes in her personal circumstances stating that she did not want to proceed to Delhi Division. Unfortunately, her request could not be accepted as Master Circular-24 (circulated under SER's Estt. Sl. No. 112/23) para 7.6 (Transfer on the basis of own request for one way) states that every effort should be made to relieve her/him at an early date (Annexure R/1). As the applicant refused to acknowledge the receipt of the reliving letter, the department had no alternative but to consider her as deemed to be released. Therefore, she was officially released on 08.05.2025 (A.N) with further direction to report at Personnel Branch on 09.05.2025 and it was communicated to her via e-office as well as Whatsapp as she had left her work place without any information. However, she submitted sick information to Personnel Branch on 09.05.2025 at 7.31 PM through e-office. It is alleged by the respondents that her sick intimation was not even supported by any sick-certificate, merely attaching doctor's prescription.
3.1 With regard to her selection to RDSO on deputation, it is submitted by the respondents that no official confirmation was available with the department till the date of relieving on 08.05.2025. Moreover, nothing was mentioned regarding RDSO in her application made for withholding of transfer order submitted on the date of relieving, i.e. 08.05.2025. However, she had submitted an Digitally signed by SURYAROOP KABI SURYAROOP DN: C=IN, O="CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, PATNA BENCH", OU=govt, Phone= 4f29e5d1dcfbce8b0afeb88c04f365f9394705d2f5ab832fd6c09841fe7c96ed, PostalCode=800001, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 20d9f640c92cc412e72af8cc564e5b863168ef75a1eadc65bafc0b4758f5dd33, CN=SURYAROOP KABI KABI Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.12.02 17:48:52+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
-6- OA/051/00369/2025 application on 19.05.2025 to Personnel Branch requesting cancellation of her transfer to Northern Railway and relieving to RDSO/LKO attaching a copy of RDSO's letter dated 14.05.2025, i.e. much later from the date of her releasing on 08.05.2025 from Electrical (TRD) Branch.
3.2 The respondents have further mentioned that if her request for cancellation of transfer is accepted, it could sent a troubling precedence and other staff may feel encouraged to submit their own Inter-Railway transfer requests without valid reasons and later seek cancellation after approval has been granted, which ultimately result in wastage of time and working of the officials involved in entire process.
3.3 The respondents have alleged that the applicant had enough opportunity to withdraw her own request transfer application online through HRMS before it received approval of competent authorities, but she chose not to do so and no personal request of any extension was received even after the issue of office order dated 23.04.2025 till the date of releasing on 08.05.2025.
3.4 The respondents have stated that it is a fact that representation of the staff had been forwarded to RDSO/Lucknow seeking their NOC as there is no bar to forward letter to different organization at a time seeking their NOC. The respondents have further stressed the point that offer of appointment in ex-cadre post Digitally signed by SURYAROOP KABI SURYAROOP DN: C=IN, O="CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, PATNA BENCH", OU=govt, Phone= 4f29e5d1dcfbce8b0afeb88c04f365f9394705d2f5ab832fd6c09841fe7c96ed, PostalCode=800001, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 20d9f640c92cc412e72af8cc564e5b863168ef75a1eadc65bafc0b4758f5dd33, CN=SURYAROOP KABI KABI Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.12.02 17:48:52+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
-7- OA/051/00369/2025 on tenure basis by RSDO/Lucknow as issued on 14.05.2025, whereas the applicant had already been released finally from Ranchi Division on 09.05.2025, i.e. before issue of order regarding selection to RDSO/LKO on deputation basis on ex-cadre post. The respondents have also enclosed a letter dated 09.06.2025 (Annexure R/2) of SE Railway to the RDSO informing that applicant was relieved to join Northern Railway from Ranchi Division as per office order dated 09.05.2025. The respondents have accordingly prayed for dismissal of the OA being devoid of merit.
4. The applicant has filed rejoinder and denied the contentions of the respondents in their written statement. In the rejoinder the applicant has enclosed the selection letter dated 05.05.2025 in respect of the applicant by the RDSO (Annexure/P7) and the Vigilance Clearance certificate (page 151, 152 and 153) in support of her contention that she had been denied better opportunity by the respondents.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.
6. The learned counsel for the parties during hearing mainly argued on the basis of their respective pleadings.
Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that when the applicant's application for deputation to RDSO was forwarded by the Digitally signed by SURYAROOP KABI SURYAROOP DN: C=IN, O="CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, PATNA BENCH", OU=govt, Phone= 4f29e5d1dcfbce8b0afeb88c04f365f9394705d2f5ab832fd6c09841fe7c96ed, PostalCode=800001, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 20d9f640c92cc412e72af8cc564e5b863168ef75a1eadc65bafc0b4758f5dd33, CN=SURYAROOP KABI KABI Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.12.02 17:48:52+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
-8- OA/051/00369/2025 department themselves while giving NOC and vigilance clearance certificate the applicant had every reason to believe that she would be relieved to join the post of deputation at RDSO, Lucknow. Learned counsel also argued that the RDSO's letter dated 05.05.2025 was issued much before the relieving order dated 09.05.2025 to join Northern Railway, Delhi.
Learned counsel for the respondents has argued that as per various judicial pronouncements transfer is an incidence of service and that en employee should join first at the transferred place and then ventilate his/her grievance. The transfer order has been passed by the competent authority and it also does suffer from being arbitrary in nature as the applicant's transfer order was issued on her own request. Learned counsel also argued that during the period when transfer order was in operation the applicant did not make any request for withdrawing previous transfer order dated 23.04.2025.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the records, we have considered the matter in its entirety and come to the following conclusion:-
(i) It is true that transfer is an incidence of service and that an employee, who wants the order to be reconsidered, should first of all obey the order of the employer to join at the transferred place and then ventilate her grievance by submitting representation. This should be the course of action under normal circumstances.Digitally signed by SURYAROOP KABI
SURYAROOP DN: C=IN, O="CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, PATNA BENCH", OU=govt, Phone= 4f29e5d1dcfbce8b0afeb88c04f365f9394705d2f5ab832fd6c09841fe7c96ed, PostalCode=800001, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 20d9f640c92cc412e72af8cc564e5b863168ef75a1eadc65bafc0b4758f5dd33, CN=SURYAROOP KABI KABI Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.12.02 17:48:52+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
-9- OA/051/00369/2025 However, here is a case where admittedly the respondents themselves forwarded the application of applicant for deputation to RDSO, Lucknow on 27.02.2025 much before releasing the applicant finally on 09.05.2025 from Ranchi Division to Delhi Division. It is also admitted fact that when selection was finalized, RDSO sought NOC/Vigilance Clearance and the same was sent on 29.04.2025 (page 150 of rejoinder) in favour of the applicant. We also note that when the applicant was finally selected on 05.05.2025, she was still not relieved for Delhi. The offer letter was issued on 14.05.2025 (Annexure-7) by the RDSO. In this way, the applicant had reasonable expectation to be relieved to join RDSO, Lucknow on deputation.
(ii) The respondents have mentioned in their written statement that if her request for cancellation of transfer is accepted, it could set a troubling precedence and other staff may feel encouraged to submit their Inter-Railway transfer requests without valid reasons and later seek cancellation after approval has been granted. In a way this reveals that the respondents are prepared to consider the case of the applicant but are not doing so for the fear of avoiding any such request by other employees. We straightaway reject this ground as this is simply based on surmises and conjectures.
(iii) Another ground taken by the respondents that offer of appointment in ex-cadre post on tenure basis by RDSO/Lucknow was issued on 14.05.2025, whereas the applicant had already been released finally from Ranchi Division on 09.05.2025. In the rejoinder the applicant has enclosed the selection letter dated 05.05.2025 in respect of the applicant by the RDSO (Annexure/P7) that has not been controverted by the respondents during the course of hearing.
Digitally signed by SURYAROOP KABISURYAROOP DN: C=IN, O="CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, PATNA BENCH", OU=govt, Phone= 4f29e5d1dcfbce8b0afeb88c04f365f9394705d2f5ab832fd6c09841fe7c96ed, PostalCode=800001, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 20d9f640c92cc412e72af8cc564e5b863168ef75a1eadc65bafc0b4758f5dd33, CN=SURYAROOP KABI KABI Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.12.02 17:48:52+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
-10- OA/051/00369/2025 This becomes evident that the process of the applicant to be able to join at RDSO Lucknow had been set in motion. We further hold that this is merely a technical ground if we consider the joining time on transfer. If the applicant is spared on 09.05.2025 and the offer of appointment to RDSO Lucknow is issued on 14.05.2025 i.e. five days later then it could very well be considered to be within the normal joining/ transit period of time at the new place of posting. In our opinion, the respondents should have relieved the applicant (a female employee) for joining on deputation to RDSO, Lucknow for better career opportunities instead of forcing her to join at Delhi by one reason or another and then asking her to make a representation for consideration of her request.
8. In view of above observation and finding, the OA is partly allowed in terms of the relief claimed in Para 8(iii) of the relief column of this OA. The respondents are directed to consider the case of applicant and allow her to join at RDSO/Lucknow, for the post of Senior Section Engineer Electrical Inspection in view of Assistant Personnel Officer/NG-II, RDSO/Lucknow letter dated 14.05.2025 for better and prospective career by modifying the earlier releasing order whereby she was directed to report DRM(P)/Delhi Division. It is expected that the relieving order be issued within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of this order. No order as to costs.
(Kumar Rajesh Chandra) (Justice Narendra Kumar Johari)
Member (A) Member(J)
Srk.
Digitally signed by SURYAROOP KABI
SURYAROOP DN: C=IN, O="CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, PATNA BENCH", OU=govt, Phone=
4f29e5d1dcfbce8b0afeb88c04f365f9394705d2f5ab832fd6c09841fe7c96ed, PostalCode=800001, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 20d9f640c92cc412e72af8cc564e5b863168ef75a1eadc65bafc0b4758f5dd33, CN=SURYAROOP KABI KABI Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.12.02 17:48:52+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0