Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shankar Prasad Tiwari vs Rail Bhawan on 7 May, 2025
1
O.A. No. 1836/2024
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH
O.A. No. 1836/2024
Reserved on: 06.05.2025
Pronounced on: 07.05.2025
HON'BLE SHRI AJAY PRATAP SINGH, MEMBER (J)
Shankar Prasad Tiwari
S/o (Late) Sh. Nand Lal Tiwari,
Aged about 52 years,
R/o House No.B-62, Sector-31,
Noida, Gautam Buddha Nagar,
Uttar Pradesh - 201 301.
...Applicant
Versus
1. Union of India,
Ministry of Railways through General Manager,
Northern Railway,
Headquarter Office, Baroda House,
New Delhi.
2. Chairman & CEO,
Railway Board, Rail Bhawan,
New Delhi - 110 001.
...Respondents
For Applicant: Mr. Shailesh N. Pathak, Advocate with Mr. R.S.
Janwa, Mr. Saumitr Parashar, Mr. Mrinal
Rahewal, Advocates.
For Respondents: Mr. Rajeev Kumar, Senior CGSC with
Mr.Bhuvnesh Shukla, Advocate
ORDER
AS PER AJAY PRATAP SINGH, MEMBER JUDICIAL:
Applicant is a IRSME in SAG by means of this Application has invoked jurisdiction of this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking following relief(s) [as extracted from the OA] reads as under:-
"(a) Quash and set aside the impugned order dated 22/04/2024 to the extent mentioned above and placed at 2 O.A. No. 1836/2024 Annexure A/1 and all prescriptive orders/actions arising therefrom; and
(b) Quash and set aside the impugned order dated 26/04/2024 to the extent mentioned above and placed at Annexure A/2; and
(c) Quash and set aside the impugned notice dated 27/04/2024 placed at Annexure A/3.
(d) Direct the respondents to let the Applicant continue at the current post or in alternate at any other post in Delhi/NCR Region on spouse ground.
(e) Accord all consequential benefits.
(f) Award costs of the proceedings; and
(g) Pass any order/relief/direction(s) as this Hon'ble
Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the interests of justice in favour of the applicant."
FACTS IN BRIEF
2. The Briefly stated facts, as adumbrated by the applicant in nutshell that the applicant is a IRSME, 1999 batch, working in SAG as CWM/RCNK, Sonipat, Haryana has challenged transfer Order dated 22.04.2024 to the extent of creation of post of ADRM/MB by transferring and utilizing SAG/IRSME post of NFR to Moradabad against newly created post. So also impugning consequential order dated 26.04.2024 to accommodate someone and also assailing Notice dated 27.04.2024 whereby charge taken without handing over charge of the post. The challenge to the impugned orders is mainly based on frequent transfer as many as eight transfers in row within one and half years and within two months of joining at Sonipat, Haryana to accommodate Mr. Sudhanshu Panwar and longest-stayee at Head Quarter New Delhi has not been transferred. The impugned transfer order is also violative of O.M. dated 30.09.2009 and policy dated 22.04.2024, so also violative of principles of natural justice.
3. It is also the case of the applicant as set out in the OA that wife of applicant is a Group 'A' officer, Senior Public Prosecutor posted at ACB of Head Office, CBI, New Delhi. Both applicant and his spouse are working in different department of Central Government and as per OM dated 30.09.2009 and 02.02.2010, they are to be posted at a same station. Respondents have transferred 3 O.A. No. 1836/2024 applicant eight times in a period of one and half year and same is malice in law actuated by malafides.
4. Applicant has also made averment in the OA that vide order dated 20.02.2023, 28.03.2023, 10.08.2023, 13.09.2023, 20.10.2023, 13.12.2023 and 06.02.2024 transferred thereafter on eight time transferred vide impugned transfer order dated 22.04.2024 and vide order dated 26.04.2024 to accommodate Mr. Sudhanshu Panwar, CWM/JUDW and applicant has seven years child and ailing month and spouse is also posted at Delhi and impugned orders deserve to be quashed.
5. Per contra, Respondents are contesting the claim of the applicant by filing the counter affidavit. Respondents stated that applicant completed tenure at RDSO and on his own request vide order dated 11.05.2016 transferred to COF/MOW, New Delhi, vide order dated 12.04.2019 COF/MOW, New Delhi to North Central Railway and joined NCR on 30.09.2019. Applicant promoted to SAG, IRSME and posted at NCR on own request. So also vide order dated 03.05.2021 again posted from NCR to IR OAF, New Delhi. Thereafter, vide order dated 13.05.2021, on own request transferred from NCR to Northern Railway and accommodated in surplus on own request.
6. Respondents have also averred in the written statement that applicant posted in Delhi (NCR) on his own request from June 2016 to April, 2019 and from May, 2021 till April, 2024. So also during last five years every effort was made to accommodate applicant on his request. Applicant was transferred from Head Office, New Delhi vide order dated 20.07.2023 to STC/CB/LKO on own request transferred back to Head Office, Delhi vide order dated 28.03.2023, Transferred to Lucknow vide order dated 10.08.2023 was short term temporary transfer and same was not permanent transfer. Applicant was transferred on administrative grounds on 20.10.2023 and joined at Sonipat on 06.02.2024. Applicant has been transferred vide impugned order due to administrative requirement for train operation as ADRM, Moradabad, Northern Railway closer to Delhi NCR about 165 km away from Delhi. The applicant belongs to IRSME, SAG post from North East Frontier Railway and for operational requirement 4 O.A. No. 1836/2024 posted as ADRM at Moradabad and he has already taken over the charge of the post of ADRM at Moradabad on 08.05.2024. The applicant is holding a transferrable post and can be transferred in exigencies and has been posted near Delhi within territorial posting of his spouse.
7. Respondents have further averred in the written statement that posting as ADRM/MB required to meet the train running operation which is 24 x 7 activities and plays an important aspect for train operation for overall efficiency safety and smooth train operations. Posting of the applicant near to Delhi is in consonance with RBE letter dated 02.02.2010. Applicant was transferred and he did not relinquish the charge and Sh. Sudhanshu Panwar took over charge of the post of CWM/RCNK/Sonipat to implement the transfer and to utilize his service in administrative exigency applicant was posted as ADRM/MB and posting at Moradabad is akin to Sonipat, the place of previous posting. The competent authority - Railway Board on administrative urgency for safe and proper train operations and Shri Sudhanshu Panwar, CWM/JUDW was also transferred and posted as CWM/RCNK/Sonipat by the cadre controlling authority.
8. Rejoinder has been filed by the applicant denying averments made in the written statement reiterating stand taken in the OA. So also stated that there were other officers of same rank at Delhi/NCR and applicant has been victimized by frequent transfers despite having spouse ground for posting at Delhi/NCR. Applicant never submitted application as per Railway Board letter dated 19.02.2024 for purpose of posting as ADRM and without assessing his eligibility posted him as ADRM. The Standing Committee also did not recommend for such transfer and without assigning any reasons, applicant has been victimized and transferred from Sonipat in two months. Respondents compelled the new incumbent to take over the charge one-sidedly on next day after issuance of consequential order dated 26.04.2024 and no proper handing over-taking over of charge of the post. Respondents violated rules regarding posting on spouse grounds and normal tenure is two years and maximum tenure will be five years and as per Railway Board Comprehensive Transfer 5 O.A. No. 1836/2024 Policy for Railway Officer dated 31.08.2015 - minimum tenure on a particular post will be two years and maximum five years and as per R.B. letter dated 02.02.2010 - posting of husband and wife at the same station. Applicant be posted at Sonipat by setting aside transfer order dated 22.04.2024 and OA deserves to be allowed.
SUBMISSIONS
9. Shri Shailesh N. Pathak, learned counsel for the applicant, criticizing impugned orders argued and can be summarized as under -
(i) Applicant is a IRSME, working in SAG as CWM/RCNK/SNP at Sonipat arbitrarily transferred vide transfer order dated 22.04.2024, the same is contrary to Rule (iv) of the Transfer Policy dated 31.08.2015, whereby transfer and posting will be against clear vacancy of a sanctioned post whereas impugned transfer order dated 22.04.2024 is against newly created post. So also consequential order dated 26.04.2024 issued creating post of ADRM/MB by transferring and utilizing the SAG/IRSME post of NFR to Moradabad i.e. post of CWM/AMV/LKO, temporarily to accommodate someone. So also impugned charge taking over notice dated 27.04.2024 in haste is arbitrary exercise of power, not in public interest.
(ii) Applicant has been transferred frequently, 8th transfer in a row within the last one and half year dehors the transfer policy to accommodate Shri Sudhanshu Panwar who has completed four years at Jadhari, Haryana, who is currently on extension. Applicant has been transferred to accommodate Mr. Sudhanshu Panwar and impugned orders deserve to be quashed.
(iii) Applicant was posted at Sonipat for last two months and transferred whereas at HQ, New Delhi sufficient member of officers working for many years 4 - 5 years could be transferred to Moradabad.
(iv) The impugned orders are dehors the Railway's own comprehensive transfer policy for Railway officers dated 02.02.2010, 6 O.A. No. 1836/2024 DoPT OM dated 30.09.2009 and contrary to principles of natural justice.
10. Shri Rajeev Kumar, learned Senior CGSC, appearing for respondents contended and can be summarized as under -
(i) Applicant is a SAG, IRSME and due to administrative/ operational requirement balancing cadre position, Railway Board posted applicant as ADRM/Moradabad/Northern Railway, close to Delhi NCR, keeping in view family problem, spouse posting, 165 kms from Delhi NCR. During last five years every efforts made to accommodate applicant. Applicant remain posted at Delhi NCR on own request from June, 2016 to April, 2019, May 2021 till April, 2024 and vide impugned orders transferred in administrative exigencies.
(ii) Applicant has taken over charge of the post of ADRM at Moradabad on 08.05.2024, the post of ADRM is a cadre post and applicant is a senior level Group 'A' officer, services are transferrable in exigencies.
(iii) Applicant's transfer is for running operation requirement for trains operation and posted near Delhi. The applicant has no vested right to remain posted at a particular place and liable to be transferred from one location to another based on administrative requirements.
(iv) Applicant was transferred on 20.02.2023 from NR HQ New Delhi to STC/CB/Lucknow after one and half year. On 28.03.2023 on own request accommodated from Lucknow to CME/Plg. Head Quarter. Thereafter on 10.08.2023 as temporary transfer to Lucknow and on 13.09.2023 again to N.R. Head Office, New Delhi. On 20.10.2023 from Delhi to CWM/Amritsar and posted on 06.02.024 as CWM/RCNK/Sonipat on vacant post. The applicant has already accepted the posting orders and executed the same, no case for interference is made out.
DISCUSSION
11. This is a trite law that scope of judicial interference in transfer matters in exercise of power of judicial review is limited: -
7 O.A. No. 1836/2024(i) Transfer is issue of violation of statutory rules.
(ii) Malafide exercise of power.
(iii) Transfer order is without jurisdiction."
CASE LAW
12. 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 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 8 O.A. No. 1836/2024 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]
13. 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]
14. In case of Shilpi Bose Versus State of Bihar, (1991) Supp. 2 SCC 659, Hon'ble Supreme Court was seisin with transfer of lady 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 9 O.A. No. 1836/2024 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]
15. 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]
16. In Bank of India Versus Jagjit Singh Mehta, (1992) 1 SCC 306, Their Lordships spoken through Hon'ble Shri Justice J. S. Verma, then CJI as under:-
"5. There can be no doubt that ordinarily and as far as practicable the husband and wife who are both employed should be posted at the same station even if their employers be different. The desirability of such a course is obvious. However, this does not mean that their place of posting should invariably be one of their choice, even though their preference may be taken into account while making the decision in accordance with the administrative needs. In the case of all-India services, the hardship resulting from the two being posted at different stations may be unavoidable at times particularly when they belong to different services and one of them cannot be transferred to the place of the other's posting. While choosing the career and a particular service, the couple have to bear in mind this factor and be prepared to face such a hardship if the administrative needs and transfer policy do not permit the posting of both at one place without sacrifice of the requirements of the administration and needs of other employees. In such a case the couple have to make their choice at the threshold between career prospects and family life. After giving preference to the career prospects by accepting such a promotion or any appointment in an all-India service with the incident of transfer to any place in India, subordinating the need of the couple living together at one station, they cannot as of right claim to be relieved of the ordinary incidents of all-India service and avoid transfer to a different place on the ground that the 10 O.A. No. 1836/2024 spouses thereby would be posted at different places. In addition, in the present case, the respondent voluntarily gave an undertaking that he was prepared to be posted at any place in India and on that basis got promotion from the clerical cadre to the officers' grade and thereafter he seeks to be relieved of that necessary incident of all-India service on the ground that his wife has to remain at Chandigarh. No doubt the guidelines require the two spouses to be posted at one place as far as practicable, but that does not enable any spouse to claim such a posting as of right if the departmental authorities do not consider it feasible. The only thing required is that the departmental authorities should consider this aspect along with the exigencies of administration and enable the two spouses to live together at one station if it is possible without any detriment to the administrative needs and the claim of other employees."
[Emphasis supplied] RULE OF LAW
17. The Indian Railway Establishment Code - Volume I, Fifth Edition - 1985, the Chapter I and II contain the rules governing general conditions of service applicable to the applicant. As per Rule 101- scope and extent of application of IREC-I, some of these rules correspond to the F.R. and S.R., applicable to all Civil servants (other than Railway servants) under the Indian Union, who are subject to the rule making powers of the President.
18. Chapter-2, General Conditions of service to Group 'A' & 'B' posts and Rule 226 and 227 relate to transfers in IREC- VOL.I, for ready reference reproduced as -
"226. Transfers.- Ordinarily, a railway servant shall be employed throughout his service on the railway or railway establishment to which he is posted on first appointment and shall have no claim as of right for transfer to another railway or another establishment. In the exigencies of service, however, it shall be open to the President to transfer the railway servant to any other department or railway or railway establishment including a project in or out of India. In regard to Group C and Group D railway servants, the power of the President under this rule in respect of transfer, within India may be exercised by the General Manager or by a lower authority to whom the power may be re- delegated.
227. A competent authority may transfer a Railway servant from one post to another provided that, except:-
(1) On account of inefficiency or misbehavior, or (2) On his written request.
A railway servant shall not be transferred to, or except in a case or dual charge, appointed to officiate in a post carrying less pay than the pay of the post on which he holds a lien."
[Emphasis supplied] 11 O.A. No. 1836/2024
19. As evident from the statutory provision of Rule 226 of IREC- VOL.I, general conditions of service of Group 'A' posts, the post held by the applicant is transferrable by the President-competent authority to any other department or railway or railway establishment and to post on transfer to a particular railway or another establishment cannot be claimed as matter of right. The statutory provision of Rule 226 of IREC-Vol.I, categorically prescribes that in the administrative requirement, in exigencies of service, it shall be open to the President to transfer the railway servant.
20. So also statutory provision of Rule 227 of IREM-Vol.I envisaged that a competent authority may transfer a railway servant from one post to another.
21. The gist of contentions of counsel for the applicant that impugned orders are vitiated on account of eight transfer in row within a period of eighteen months to accommodate Sh. Sudhanshu Panwar, no proper handing over-taking over of charge, violation of policy for posting on spouse grounds and transfer guidelines, so also unilateral decision to post as ADRM/Moradabad and contrary to policy for transfer and principles of natural justice.
22. Now coming to the facts of the case in hand, competent authority issued transfer order dated 13.05.2021, on the request of the applicant, SAG/IRSME/North Central Railway to Northern Railway on his own request and posted in the cadre by making suitable adjustments. Thereafter in one and half year, applicant vide order dated 20.02.2023 transferred from Northern Rly. Head Quarter, New Delhi Chief Project Manager/Rolling Stock and posted as Director/STC/CB/Lucknow vice Sh. Neeraj Srivastava, proceeded on 43 days leave. The applicant on his own request was transferred vide order dated 28.03.2023 from Lucknow to CME/Plg & EnHM/Head Quarter, New Delhi and Mr. Neeraj Srivastava was posted back in place of applicant at Lucknow.
23. Vide order dated 10.08.2023, applicant was again transferred on temporary basis from CME/Plg & EnHM, New Delhi and posted as Director/STC/CB/Lucknow vice Sh. Neeraj Srivastava who 12 O.A. No. 1836/2024 proceeded on 30 days leave. Thereafter vide order dated 13.09.2023 applicant was posted back as CME/Plg & EnHM/HQ on completion of 30 days sanctioned leave to Sh. Neeraj Srivastava. The transfer order dated 10.08.2023 was temporary transfer.
24. As evident from transfer order dated 13.05.2021, applicant was transferred on his own request from SAG/IRSME/North Central Rly to Northern Rly and vide order dated 20.02.2023 transferred temporarily for 43 days to Lucknow as Mr. Neeraj Srivastava was on 43 days leave, while post of applicant was re-designated as CWM/Co-ordination/Head Quarter. Applicant on his own request was transferred vide order dated 28.03.2023 from Lucknow to CME/Plg & EnHM/HQ. For 30 days transfer on temporary basis vice Mr. Neeraj Srivastava, 30 days leave vide order dated 1.08.2023 posted as Director /STC/CB/Lucknow on temporary transfer as Mr. Ajay Nandan proceeded for 30 days leave.
25. Competent authority issued transfer order dated 20.10.2023 whereby applicant is transferred as CWM/ASR (Amritsar) and vide order dated 13.12.2023, applicant was adjusted near to Delhi vide order dated 06.02.2024 posted at Sonipat as CWM/RCNK/Sonipat.
26. What comes out loud and clear that on own request applicant was transferred from SAG/IRSME/NCR to Northern Railway, HQ vide order dated 13.05.2021, thereafter Neeraj Srivastava posted at Lucknow proceeded on leave for 43 days and temporarily applicant was posted vide order dated 20.02.2023 and 10.08.2023 and joined back HQ vide order dated 13.09.2023. So also on own request of the applicant once again, respondents accommodated applicant and posted vide order dated 8.03.2023 and posted as CME/Plg. & EnHM/HQ. Applicant has already executed the transfer orders on temporary basis i.e. 20.02.2023, 10.08.2023 and 13.09.2023.
27. Respondents posted applicant as CWM/ASR, Amritsar vide order dated 20.10.2023 and considered family problem of applicant and posted vide order dated 06.02.2024 as CWM/RCNK/Sonipat. Thereafter vide impugned transfer order dated 22.4.2024 posted applicant SAG/IRSME/Northern Railway as Addl. Divisional Railway Manager, Moradabad. Applicant IRSME/SAG officer and 13 O.A. No. 1836/2024 posting was due to administrative requirement to meet the train running operation 24 x 7 activities for safe and smooth train operations. The posting of applicant as ADRM was crucial for overall efficiency safety and smooth train operation and applicant posted near to Delhi about 165 kms in the territorial jurisdiction of posting of the spouse in consonance with Railway Board letter dated 02.02.2010. It is in the domain of appropriate authority to decide who should be transferred depending on administrative exigencies in public interest and this Tribunal does not sit as an appellate authority over order of transfer. The transfer is an incidence of service and does not give rise to any civil consequences and in my opinion principles of natural justice in the case in hand is not attracted.
28. Undisputedly, from June 2016 to April 2019 and May 2021 till April, 2024, applicant was posted in Delhi/NCR on his own request.
29. Applicant was transferred vide impugned order dated 22.04.2024 relieved on 27.04.2024 and joined as ADRM, Moradabad on 08.05.2024 Sh. Sudhanshu Panwar CWM/JUDW in addition took over the charge of the post of CWM/RCNK/Sonipat to implement the transfer order dated 22.04.2024 and in view of operational requirement balancing it with cadre position. A SAG post from NFR belonging to IRSME, Service to which the applicant is a member already been transferred on 04.06.2024 for operation of the post of ADRM at Moradabad as evident from order dated 04.06.2024 Annexure R-14 and effective from date of release of the post by NFR or from date of actual operation of the post at Northern Railway whichever is later. I have considered the matter, it's not a case to accommodate someone as respondents already considered case of posting to near place of posting of spouse from 2016 to 2019 and 2021 to April, 2024 and in exigency and public interest transferred to Moradabad for smooth running of train operation. Applicant has not arrayed Mr. Panwar as respondent and without arraying him, averments behind his back cannot be accepted.
30. In view of above, it is clear from the facts of the case in hand that applicant has been posted on 13.05.2021 on his own request to 14 O.A. No. 1836/2024 Northern Railway and vide order dated 20.02.2023, 10.08.2023, 13.09.2023 temporarily posted at Lucknow vice Sh. Neeraj Srivastava proceeding on leave for 30 days and Mr. Ajay Nandan proceeding for 30 days leave and vide order dated 28.03.2023 on request of applicant posted as CME/Plg & EnHM/HQ w.e.f. 01.04.2023, So also vide order dated 20.10.2023 transferred to Amritsar but within short span of within two months, applicant posted near New Delhi vide order dated 06.02.2024 as CWM/RCNK/Sonipat. Applicant already executed all transfer orders and respondents have explained that not continuing at Sonipat for normal tenure was because of administrative requirement in public interest for proper and safe train operations as head of division, ADRM, Moradabad.
31. Applicant has already joined on 08.05.2024 as ADRM, Moradabad and SAG/IRSME post from NFR to NR for its operation as ADRM/MB/NR already in operation as ADRM/MB/NR vide order dated 04.06.2024 from date of actual operation of the post at Northern Railway and in my considered opinion due to administrative requirement for overall efficiency, safety and smooth train operations, applicant posted as ADRM/MB near to Delhi and applicant already joined as ADRM/MB at a place of transfer and question of relating back will not arise.
32. Shri Shailesh N. Pathak, learned counsel for the applicant also placed reliance on in the case of T.S.R. Subramanian & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in (2013) 15 SCC 732, emphasized that transfers of employees should not be used for harassment or victimization and must follow established norms and principles of natural justice, case of M/s. X Vs. Registrar General, High Court of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. (2022) 14 SCC 187, - transfers on irrelevant grounds is unsustainable. In case of Shashikant Lokhande Vs. Enviornment and Forest, 2024 SCC Online CA 341 - it is always necessary to pass a transfer order justly in public interest in Sanjay Upadhyay Vs. State of M.P. in W.P. No.21175/2019, Hon'ble High Court of M.P., Jabalpur vide order dated 03.12.2019, has set aside transfer on frequent ground without any administrative requirement; In case of Chief 15 O.A. No. 1836/2024 Secretary, Govt. of West Bengal Vs. Vaibhav Bangar, WP(C) 1901/2025, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide judgment dated 14.02.2025 in light of inter-cadre transfer Policy for IPS, upheld order passed by the Tribunal. In case of M.Kandasani Vs. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, 1996 (1) CTC 364 - in case of transfer of a Foreman Grade-I based on four times, frequent transfer without considering difficulties in life of petitioner younger son is mentally retarded and set aside the transfer issued during short period. So also placed heavy reliance on in case of C.Balachander Vs. State of Tamil Nadu W.P. 32881 of 2018, vide order dated 31.01.2019, Hon'ble High Court of Madras allowed the petition of Senior A.E. on pretext of administrative grounds as petitioner was transferred on the activities of petitioner were against the trade union and last transfer was within two months.
33. But it is settled position of law that judgment has got no universal application rather the judgment is to be tested on the basis of facts of each case. Reference in this regard is made to the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Subramanian Swamy Versus State of Tamil Nadu and Othes, (2014) s SCC 75. The relevant paragraph 47, which reads as under-
"47. It is a settled legal proposition that the ratio of any decision must be understood in the background of facts of that case and the case is only an authority for what it actually decides, and not what logically follows from it. The court should not place reliance on decision without discussion as to how factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed."
[Emphasis supplied]
34. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nair Service Society Vs. Dr. T. Beer Masthan in (2009) 5 SCC 545 in paragraph 48 held as under:-
"48....Several decision have been cited before us by the respondents, but it is well established that judgments in service jurisprudence should be understood with reference to the particular service rules in the state governing that field."
[Emphasis supplied] 16 O.A. No. 1836/2024
35. Now proceeding to examine factual aspect in case of TSR Subramanian & Ors. Vs. Union of India (supra), Their Lordships were dealing with various reports for improving public administration and directed all State Governments and UTs to issue directions like Rule 3(3) of All India Service (Conduct) Rules, 1968 to secure minimum tenure of service to various Civil servants. In case of M/s. X Vs. Registrar General, High Court of M.P. & Anr. (supra), Their Lordships were seisin with issue relating to order dated 11.01.2018 passed after full Court meeting rejecting application for reinstatement, resignation by the petitioner and reinstatement of petition as ADJ from the date of resignation. In case of Shashikant Lokhande (supra), The Single Bench of this Tribunal was seisin with the issue related to frequent transfer and there was no whisper in affidavit as to what was the nature of public interest involved in transfer of the applicant. So also in case of Sanjay Upadhyay Vs. State of M.P. (supra) petitioner was frequently transferred without any existence of administrative exigency and no explanation to frequent transfer. In case of Chief Secretary, Govt. of West Bengal Vs. Vaibhav Bangar & Ors. (supra), Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, Their Lordships were dealing with issue related to inter-cadre transfer policy for members of All India Service Officers on marriage to another member of an All India Service. In M.Kandasani Vs. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (supra), petitioner was promoted as a Grade-I Foreman and transferred four times last previous years, wife is an handicapped person, younger son is mentally retarded from his birth. The respondents could not justify cause to such frequent transfers in short time and quashed. In case of C. Balachander Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (supra) - petitioner was transferred on activities against trade union. Their Lordships observed that it is open for the respondents to initiate suitable departmental actions and punish as per rules and frequent transfers cannot be a tool to curb the activities of the employees which are against the interest of the employer.
17 O.A. No. 1836/202436. But here case in hand relates to transfer of applicant - Indian Railway Service Mechanical Engineering Cadre, 1999 Batch, Senior Administrative Grade, Group 'A' officer. On account of applicant's family problem on his own request transferred from North Eastern Railway vide order dated 11.05.2016 to COF MOW/New Delhi. Vide order dated 12.04.2019, applicant was transferred to North Central Railway as he was due to promotion to SAG/IRSME and joined NCR on 30.09.2019. Applicant was promoted to SAG and posted in NCR itself on his own request vide order dated 13.08.2019 (Annexure R-
4). Applicant; on his own request, was transferred from North Central Railway to Northern Railway vide Railway Boad's order dated 13.05.2021 and accommodated in surplus on his own request to a place near to be near his family. Applicant's own request was accepted and his transfer was made to COF MOW and Northern Railway. Undisputedly, in consonance with Policy dated 02.02.2010 by Railway Board for posting on spouse grounds, the applicant has been posted in Delhi-NCR from June 2016 to April 2019 and again from May 2021 till April 2024. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bank of India Vs. Jagjit Singh Mehta, reported in (!992) 1 SCC 306, Their Lordships held that "Posting of husband and wife at one station even if their employers be different - to be followed as far as practicable but no right conferred on an employee to remain at the same place even if administrative urgency, exigency and transfer policy do not permit it." In case of Shilpi Bose Vs. State of Bihar (1991) Supp. 2 SCC 659, Their Lordships held that "Courts should not interfere with transfer orders which are made in public interest and for administrative reasons unless the transfer orders are made in violation of any mandatory statutory rules or on ground of malafides. 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 other."
37. The fact of the matter in hand is that the applicant has been posted vide impugned order dated 22.04.2024 due to administrative requirement and posted as ADRM/Moradabad within Northern Railway, close to Delhi NCR at 165 kms. distance for smooth, safe and proper operation of trains, due to operational requirement and applicant belongs to a SAG post from North-East Frontier Railway to 18 O.A. No. 1836/2024 IRSME, SAG post transferred on 04.06.2024 for operation of post of ADRM/MB. Applicant has already joined as ADRM/MB on 08.05.2025 within territorial jurisdiction of posting of his spouse. The impugned order dated 22.04.2024 has been issued by the competent authority on administrative exigency and in public interest. The applicant has been posted against a SAG post belonging to IRSME, the service to which he belongs for operation of the post of ADRM at Moradabad to meet train running operation activities and there is no legal infirmity in the impunged orders. Therefore, with great respect to facts of the case in T.S.R. Subramanian & Ors; M/s. X Vs. Registrar General; Shashikant Lokhande; Sanjay UPadhya; Chief Secretary West Bengal Vs. Vaibhav Bangar; M. Kandasani Vs. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board; C. Balachander Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (supra) are distinguishable on facts and policy applicable and has no applicability in peculiar facts of the case in hand. Applicant was transferred as head of division to meet train running operation which is round the clock activity for over-all efficiency, safety and smooth train operations. The impugned transfer order is in administrative exigency, public interest and hence, no interference is called for.
CONCLUSION
38. For all 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 or impugned transfers order dated 22.04.2024, 26.04.2024 and 27.04.2024 so far relates to applicant are without jurisdiction.
39. The impugned orders dated 22.04.2024, 26.04.2024 and 27.04.2024 qua applicant in the present OA are upheld, do not suffer from any infirmity and remain unassailable. So also do not affect any of the service condition of the applicant.
40. Applicant has already joined as ADRM, Moradabad, at the place of transfer and question of relating back will not arise.
19 O.A. No. 1836/202441. Resultantly, the Original Application being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed.
42. There shall be no order as to costs.
43. As a sequel thereof, pending Miscellaneous Application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(Ajay Pratap Singh) Member (J) /na/