Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Debashis Chowdhury vs Defence on 30 July, 2025
1 O.A. 959 of 2023
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
KOLKATA BENCH
KOLKATA
O.A. 350/959/2023 Date of Hearing : 20.06.2025
M.A. 350/514/2024 Date of Order : 30.07.2025
Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Suchitto Kumar Das, Administrative Member
In the matter of :
Debashis Chowdhury, s/o Late Mihir Kanti
Chowdhury, aged about 52 years, working for gain
as Sr. Accounts Officer (Group-B) under the overall
control of the Controller General of Defence
Accounts at present residing at 696/B, Lake Town,
Block - A, Kolkata - 700089 Email:
[email protected] // Mobile:
+919691855911
.............Applicant
-versus-
1. Union of India service through the Secretary
Defence (Finance), Ministry of Defence, South
Block, New Delhi-110001.
2. Controller General of Defence Accounts, Ulan
Batar Road, Palam, Delhi Cantt-110010.
3. Principal Controller of Accounts (Factories),
10A, S. K. Bose Road, Kolkata - 700001.
...... Respondents
For the Applicant : Mr. C. Sinha (Counsel)
For the Respondents : Mr. B.B. Chatterjee (Counsel)
Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone=
Dhrubajyoti banerjee
90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal,
SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2025.07.31 11:35:41+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
2 O.A. 959 of 2023
ORDER
Per Mr. Suchitto Kumar Das, Administrative Member :
1. This matter is taken up by Single Bench in view of the revised list dated 04.04.2000 issued under Sub section (6) of Section 5 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 and as no complicated question of law is involved this matter is taken up for disposal.
2. The applicant has approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 praying for the following common relief(s):
"a) To set aside and quash impugned letter No. Pers-II/2153/Trf-
Relieving dated 01.07.2022 issued by the Sr. Dy. CGDA(Pers).
b) To set aside and quash impugned letter No. Pers-11/2153/Trf- Relieving dated 02.07.2022 issued by the Sr. Dy. CGDA(Pers).
c) To set aside and quash impugned letter No. AN/X/10062/6/2022 dated 11.07.2022 issued by Sr. Dy. CGDA(Admin).
d) To set aside and quash impugned letter No. 2382/AN-I/TC /Transfer dated 12.07.2022 issued by Dy. Controller of Accounts (Fys), Kolkata as regard calling of option of three fresh choice stations other than stations falling under CDA Patna, PCDA (CC) Lucknow, PCDA (P) Allahabad & PCDA (SWC) Jaipur.
e) To direct the respondents to execute the transfer of the applicant from PCA (Fys) Kolkata to Kolkata under CDA Patna in terms of letter dated 24.06.2022 forthwith.
f) To set aside and quash impugned letter No. AN/II/2153/Trf- Posting/Representation/Vol-VIII/2023/TR-06 transferring applicant from Kolkata to Nasik: dated 06.06.2023.
g) To set aside and quash impugned letter No. 157-1/218 dated 18.07.2023 rejecting the prayer of the applicant vide his representation dated 13.06.2023.
h) To allow the applicant to function as Sr. Accounts Officer in his present place of posting at Kolkata or alternatively to be placed at his choice station acting in consonance with Order dated 22.07.2022 passed in O.A. 1285/2022.
i) Any other order or orders as the Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper."
3. Facts as narrated by the applicant in his O.A are as follows: Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.07.31 11:35:41+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 3 O.A. 959 of 2023 Applicant is an Accounts Officer in the Defence Accounts Department posted in Kolkata. An order transferring him from Kolkata to Nasik was issued on 06.06.2023. Aggrieved by his transfer to Nasik, the applicant has filed this O.A.
4. Ld. Counsel for the applicant submits that applicant while working as Accounts Officer under PCA(Fys) Kolkata was transferred to Kolkata under CDA Patna vide letter dated 24.06.2022 as per option of choice station executed by the applicant. The said order of transfer was not executed in case of the applicant and was kept on hold. Vide letter dated 11.07.2022, applicant and others were directed to execute a fresh option and an embargo was imposed with regard to exercise of the same. Being aggrieved applicant submitted representation dated 13.07.2022 ventilating his grievances. Being aggrieved, applicant filed O.A. 1285/2022 which was disposed of vide Order dated 22.07.2022 directing the respondents to consider the fresh options exercised by the applicant while issuing a fresh Order and make an honest endeavour to place the officer against his opted places. Further option was called for vide letter dated 23.08.2022 and accordingly, applicant exercised his option for Kolkata, Siliguri and Panagarh. However, a transfer Order dated 06.06.2023 was issued whereby the applicant was transferred from Kolkata to Nasik. Being aggrieved, applicant submitted representation dated 13.06.2023 which was rejected vide letter dated 18.07.2023.
Ld. Counsel for the applicant submits that on the same day i.e. on 06.06.2023, volunteers for Hard Stations & North East Region (upto SAO Level) and Tenure Stations (only SAO/AO) was called for wherefrom it is seen that vacancy at Panagarh, Kalimpong and Khapril existed, which is in consonance with the option executed by the applicant on 24.08.2022 in terms of letter dated 23.08.2022. When vacancy existed at the choice stations of the applicant, the Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.07.31 11:35:41+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 4 O.A. 959 of 2023 same was required to be considered by the respondents while issuing fresh order of Transfer dated 06.06.2023.
Ld. Counsel for the applicant submits that when transfer order dated 24.06.2022 has been operated and some officers have been ordered to be released, the action of the respondents in revisiting and/or reviewing the said order of transfer by calling for fresh option with an embargo upon execution of the option points towards mala fide intention of the respondents rendering the order of transfer illegal and bad in law. When applicant has been asked to exercise option with regard to transfer and applicant has executed the same, on consideration of the said option, applicant has been transferred from PCA (Fys.) Kolkata to Kolkata under CDA Patna. Any retraction therefrom by not executing transfer order dated 24 06.2022 and calling for fresh option is illegal, arbitrary and bad in law. The scope of exercising option has been narrowed and squeezed in terms of letter dated 11.07.2022 and 12.07.2022 respectively which is against the Transfer Policy resulting in an imposition of an embargo which is illegal and bad in law. There has been a flagrant violation of Article 14 of the Constitution inasmuch as specific group of Officials has been ordered to be released to their choice stations and calling of fresh option by limiting the scope of the same.
Ld. Counsel for the applicant submits that issuance of Order dated 11.07.2022 have taken away the right of the applicant to join Kolkata under CDA Patna resulting in violation of Right to Equality as enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution. Transfer Order dated 06.06.2023 is in complete violation and breach of the direction as contained in Order dated 22.07.2023 in O.A. 1285/2022 and as such deserves to be set aside and quashed. Impugned letter dated 18.07.2023 is cryptic, non-reasoned and not in consonance with the direction as Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.07.31 11:35:41+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 5 O.A. 959 of 2023 contained in Order dated 22.07.2022 and hence is liable to be set aside and quashed.
Ld. Counsel for the applicant submits that this Tribunal in order dated 22.07.22 directed the respondent department to consider the fresh option exercised by the applicant while issuing a fresh order and make an honest endeavour to place the officer against the opted places. As the applicant reposed faith on the Hon'ble court order and also on the respondents, he presumed that Hon'ble CGDA Hqrs. will comply with the Hon'ble CAT order and post the applicant to one of his opted places. CGDA Hqrs. wilfully violated the Hon'ble CAT's order, which was not anticipated by the applicant and as such applicant did not apply for AVL and hard/tenure station volunteers called for by the respondents. This Tribunal issued order on 22.07.22 and applicant's transfer order was issued on 06.06.2023. In between, many postings were made in the 3 choice stations. Lots of vacancies were available in the 3 choice stations after the Tribunal's order dated 22.07.2022 and applicant's transfer order to Nasik was not revisited. It was clearly mentioned in the CAT order regarding his posting at 3 choice stations which was rejected on the ground that there is no vacancy in the three choice stations. Then the question arises if there is no vacancy in the three choice stations, then how 11 SAOs were posted one month later vide CGDA Hqrts. Letter dated 11.07.23. The applicant in his 25 years' service (1998 till date) has served 10 years (2009-2019) i.e. 40% of his service life outside home station. He is not averse to serve anywhere in India. However, he protests against discrimination shown by the department to the applicant violating interim relief granted and the transfer policy.
Ld. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant in reply to his RTI query was informed that the strength of SAOs in Kolkata, Siliguri and Panagarh Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.07.31 11:35:41+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 6 O.A. 959 of 2023 is 64, 16 and 10 respectively. However, the actual strength of SAOs posted in this station cannot be confirmed. The very information is contradictory as the respondents have asked for volunteers at Siliguri and Panagarh station.
5. Ld. Counsel for the respondents submits that the Defence Accounts Department under which the applicant is serving has a vast geographical spread with a network of over 1100 offices located at 255 stations. In order to render prompt and efficient service to the Defence Forces, it is imperative to keep strength of the offices in sync with the user requirement which necessitates transfer of officers and staff at times to uncongenial locations and difficult areas.
Transfers in the grade of Sr. Accounts Officers are centrally controlled by the Respondent No. 2 viz. the Controller General of Defence Accounts. The post of Senior Accounts Officer, which the applicant holds in the department, is Group A post having all India transfer liability. The respondent department has laid down Transfer-Policy for officers and staff. Every year, volunteers amongst Senior Accounts Officers/Accounts Officers for posting to choice stations, after completion of prescribed tenure in their present station, are called for. The post of SAOS/AOS from Annual Volunteer List (AVL) to his/her choice stations are made as per the availability of the vacancy in the desired station. However, in case when there are no volunteers for particular stations then station seniors from the stations where there is excess are transferred to the deficient stations to fill the vacancies. There are station stations which have been categorized as Hard Stations/Tenure Stations due to adverse climatic/geographical conditions or lack of basic amenities etc. Consequent on corporatization of Ordnance Factories, the services of the Department in Ordnance Factories is no longer required. This has resulted in drastic reduction of manpower from various stations associated with Ordnance Factories particularly in Kolkata station. Accordingly, officers and staff Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.07.31 11:35:41+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 7 O.A. 959 of 2023 under PCA (Fys) Kolkata were transferred to other stations under different PCSDA/CSDA. In this process the applicant was also transferred locally from PCA (Fys) Kolkata to sub-office at Kolkata under CDA Patna by Respondent No. 2 vide order dated 24 06.2022. However, during review, it was noticed that officers and staff in certain stations had been posted over and above the authorization.
Therefore, transfer orders of AOS were cancelled by Respondent No. 2 vide order dated 21.07.2022. Thus, transfer order of the applicant to sub-office at Kolkata station under CDA Patna also stood cancelled and he was retained in PCA (Fys) Kolkata till completion of review.
However, the applicant approached the Hon'ble Tribunal by filing OA No. 1285/2022 against cancellation of his transfer order to sub-office at Kolkata station under CDA Patna. The Tribunal in order dated 22.07.2022 directed the respondent department to consider the fresh option exercised by the applicant while issuing a fresh order and make an honest endeavour to place the officer against the opted places. The applicant opted for choice station Kolkata, Siliguri and Panagarh and he was retained in Kolkata station at that time. Respondent No. 2 through order dated 01.11.2022 had also issued alert notice to SAOs/AOs who had completed 03 years in the present station for transfer to other stations on administrative ground. In the instant case, the applicant had served more than 03 years in Kolkata station. Therefore, the applicant was well aware that he was likely to get transferred to other station on administrative ground. Despite that he did not apply in Annual Volunteer List (AVL) and Hard/Tenure volunteers called for earlier by Respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 14.11.2022, the applicant was in the false notion that he will not be transferred out from Kolkata. The transfer of the applicant to Nasik is strictly covered under Para 2.3 and 5 (ii) of Transfer Policy dated 28.03.2014. The Para 2.3 of the policy states that continuation of an Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.07.31 11:35:41+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 8 O.A. 959 of 2023 individual at a station beyond three years is subject to the overriding conditions that (a) it is not necessary to immediately transfer him/her to meet a requirement elsewhere and (b) there is no legitimate claimant for the station where he is serving. The policy further states in Para 5(ii) that transfer from other stations (i.e other than Hard/Tenure station) can be made to meet the shortages in other stations. In the instant case, the applicant has completed more than 03 years in the present station viz. Kolkata and he is one of the eligible station senior in Kolkata. Therefore, he has been transferred to Nasik to meet the urgent requirement at Nasik station for which no volunteers are available. Transfer of the applicant to Nasik has been made purely on administrative ground and in public interest. There are excess posting of Senior Accounts Officers in Kolkata station whereas there is deficiency in some other stations viz. Mumbai, Nasik, Bangalore, Bhuj, Jamnagar, Leli, Srinagar, Naliya etc. Accordingly, Senior Accounts Officers from Kolkata, who are station seniors in Kolkata station, have been transferred to deficient stations. Applicant is not the only officer who has been transferred from Kolkata station but there are some other officers who have recently been transferred from Kolkata to other stations on administrative ground. Therefore, no illegality is committed by the Respondents in transfer of the applicant from Kolkata to Nasik. Presently there are excess SAOs in Kolkata station and thus he cannot be retained in Kolkata station. Further, there is no vacancy in his choice station viz. Kolkata, Siliguri and Panagarh.
Ld. Counsel for the respondents submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court pronounced that authorities are not required to justify the transfer by giving reasons thereof. (Union of India vs SL Abbas (1993) 4 SCC 357). The only conditions for a valid transfer order are that the order must not be mala fide. Further, an allegation of mala fide must be supported by concrete evidence and a Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.07.31 11:35:41+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 9 O.A. 959 of 2023 firm factual foundation. It must not be based on insinuations and vague allegations. In the instant case, the allegations made by the applicant do not rest on any firm foundation. The transfer of the applicant to Nasik station has been approved by the competent authority based on the recommendation of the DAPB which has taken into account all the relevant factors/policy while recommending his case for transfer to Nasik.
Ld. Counsel for the respondents submits that calling for choice stations is an administrative endeavour to accommodate the official in their opted choice if administratively feasible and it cannot be claimed as a right. The applicant (holding a transferable post) does not have any vested right to be posted at a particular place.
Ld. Counsel for the respondents submits that the Respondent department while seeking choice station had not given an assurance for posting in the opted station. The posting is made as per the administrative feasibility. The order regarding not opting station/offices as choice under CDA Patna, PCDA (CC) Lucknow, PCDA (Pension) Prayagraj and PCDA (SWC) Jaipur was issued since there were no vacancies in these organizations. The Transfer Policy dated 28.03.2014 does not confer any right to post an employee in one of his choice stations when he is serving in other stations (i.e. other than Hard/Tenure stations). Only on repatriation from Hard/Tenure station, after completion of the requisite stay, an official is entitled for posting in his choice stations as far as possible as per administrative feasibility. In the instant case, the applicant is serving in Kolkata station (which is categorized as Other Station' and it is not a Hard/Tenure station). Therefore, he is not eligible to be posted mandatorily in his choice station.
Ld. Counsel for the respondents submits that after cancellation of the transfer order of the applicant from PCA (Fys) Kolkata to sub-office at Kolkata Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.07.31 11:35:41+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 10 O.A. 959 of 2023 under CDA Patna he was retained in PCA (Fys) Kolkata during the year 2022.
However, he cannot claim perpetual right to be retained in Kolkata station. Ld. Counsel for the respondents submits that the option exercised by the applicant on 24.08.2022 became redundant and he should have applied afresh in AVL 2022- 23 or as volunteers for Hard/Tenure station vacancies circulated by the Respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 14.11.2022. The applicant has neither applied as volunteer for his choice stations in AVL nor has he applied for Hard/Tenure station in response to letter dated 14.11.2022.
Ld. Counsel for the respondents submits that the relief sought by the applicant regarding exemption from transfer is not covered under the Transfer Policy of the Department and his transfer to Sr. Dy. IFA (Army) Nasik is issued purely on administrative ground and in public interest to fill the urgent and single independent office vacancy for which there is no volunteer available. Ld. Counsel for the respondents cites the following judgments in support of his arguments:
1. Shilpi Bose & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 1991 Supp. (2) Supreme Court Cases-659
2. Union of India vs SL Abbas reported in (1993) 4 SCC 357
3. State of U.P & Ors. Vs. Gobardhan Lal reported in (2004) 11 SCC 402
4. Partha Saha Vs. Defence in O.A 49/2024
5. Koushik Sikdar Vs. Defence in O.A 963/2023
6. Heard the parties. Perused material on record.
7. It is the applicant's claim that the transfer order dated 24/06/2022 posting him under PCDA (Patna) should be operationalized. From the material on record, it is seen that the order dated 24/06/2022 was stayed before it could be fully implemented. This order was not implemented as adequate vacancies did Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.07.31 11:35:41+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 11 O.A. 959 of 2023 not exist as per the transfer order. The authority had also decided to review the manpower requirement particularly in the light of corporatization of the Ordnance Factories which had resulted in reduction of requirements of Defence Accounts officers specially at Kolkata.
At this stage, the applicant had approached the Tribunal which directed the respondents vide order dated 22/07/2022 to make honest efforts to post him at one of his choice place of posting, i.e., Kolkata, Siliguri or Panagarh. The respondents decided to retain him in Kolkata which was one of the places he had opted for. He was retained in Kolkata after the Tribunal's order as per the choice given by him. He has accepted this position at the material time. The direction of the Tribunal dated 22/07/2022 was thus substantially complied with by the respondents.
8. It is well settled position of law that transfer of an officer/employee is inherent in terms of the appointment and in absence of its provision in the relevant Service Rule, it is implicit as an essential condition of service subject to contrary provision in the rule.
In the case of Shanti Kumari v. Regional Deputy Director, Health Services, Patna Division, Patna and others, reported in (1981) 2 SCC 72, the Hon'ble Supreme Court ruled as under:
"2. .....Transfer of a Government servant may be due to exigencies of service or due to administrative reasons. The courts cannot interfere in such matters. ...."
In B. Varadha Rao v. State of Karnataka and others, reported in (1986) 4 SCC 131, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had the occasion to consider a short point whether an order of transfer is appealable under Rule 19 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957, and the Supreme Court held that transfer of a government servant who is appointed to a particular cadre Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.07.31 11:35:41+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 12 O.A. 959 of 2023 of transferable posts from one place to another is an ordinary incident of service and therefore does not result in any alteration of any of the conditions of service to his disadvantage. That a government servant is liable to be transferred to a similar post in the same cadre is a normal feature and incident of government service and no government servant can claim to remain in a particular place or in a particular post unless, of course, his appointment itself is to a specified, non-
transferable post.
In the case of Shilpi Bose (Mrs) and others v. State of Bihar and others, reported in 1991 Supp (2) SCC 659 the Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Patna High Court and held as under:
"4. In our opinion, the courts should not interfere with a transfer order which is 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 mala fide. 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- today 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 law laid down in Shilpi Bose (supra) was again reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others v. S.L. Abbas, reported in (1993) 4 SCC 357, and observed as under:
"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".
The Hon'ble Supreme Court again dealt with the matter of transfer in the case of State of U.P. and others v. Gobardhan Lal, reported in (2004) 11 SCC 402. The Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.07.31 11:35:41+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 13 O.A. 959 of 2023 Supreme Court held that a challenge to an order of transfer should normally be eschewed and should not be countenanced by the courts or tribunals as though they are Appellate Authorities over such orders, which could assess the niceties of the administrative needs and requirements of the situation concerned. This is for the reason that courts or tribunals cannot substitute their own decisions in the matter of transfer for that of competent authorities of the State and even allegations of mala fides when made must be such as to inspire confidence in the court or are based on concrete materials and ought not to be entertained on the mere making of it or on consideration borne out of conjectures or surmises and except for strong and convincing reasons, no interference could ordinarily be made with an order of transfer.
Similar view has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajendra Singh and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, reported in (2009) 15 SCC 178, and held as under:
"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; SCC p. 406, para 7).
9. The courts are always reluctant in interfering with the transfer of an employee unless such transfer is vitiated by violation of some statutory provisions or suffers from mala fides..."
In Rajendra Roy Vs. Union of India & another, JT 1992 (6) SC 732, it was said "in a transferable post an order of transfer is a normal consequence and personal difficulties are matters for consideration of the department." Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.07.31 11:35:41+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 14 O.A. 959 of 2023 In N.K. Singh Vs. Union of India, JT 1994 (5) SC 298, the Hon'ble Apex Court said:
"Unless the decision is vitiated by mala fides or infraction of any professed norm of principle governing the transfer, which alone can be scrutinised judicially, there are no judicially manageable standards for scrutinising all transfers....."
In Abani Kanta Ray Vs. State of Orissa & others 1995 suppl. (4) SCC 169 the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed:
"It is settled law that a transfer which is an incident of service is not to be interfered with by the Courts unless it is shown to be clearly arbitrary or vitiated by mala fides or infraction of any professed norm or principle governing the transfer."
In National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. Vs. Shri Bhagwan 2001 (8) SCC 574, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that transfer of a particular employee appointed to the class or category of transferable posts from one place to other is not only an incident, but a condition of service, necessary too in public interest and efficiency in the public administration.
In Public Service Tribunal Bar Association Vs. State of U.P. & another 2003 (4) SCC 104 the Court said, "Transfer is an incident of service and is made in administrative exigencies. Normally it is not to be interfered with by the Courts. This Court consistently has been taken a view that orders of transfer should not be interfered with except in rare cases where the transfer has been made in a vindictive manner."
In Union of India VS. Janardhan Debanath, JT 2004 (2) SC 371, the Hon'ble Apex Court said, "No Government servant or employee of a public undertaking has any legal right to be posted forever at any one particular place or place of his choice since transfer of a particular employee appointed to the class or category of transferable posts from one place to other is not only an incident, but a condition of service, necessary too in public interest and efficiency in the public administration. Unless an order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of mala fide exercise or stated to be in violation of statutory provisions prohibiting any such transfer, the Courts or the Tribunals normally cannot Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.07.31 11:35:41+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 15 O.A. 959 of 2023 interfere with such orders as a matter of routine, as though they were the appellate authorities substituting their own decision for that of the employer/management...."
In Prasar Bharti Vs. Amarjeet Singh 2007 (9) SCC 539, the Court said that an order of transfer is an administrative order. There cannot be any doubt that the transfer being an incident of service should not be interfered except some cases where, inter alia, mala fide on the part of the authorities is proved.
In Union of India & another Vs. Murlidhar Menon & others 2009 (11) SCALE 416 the Court observed that even if the conditions of service are not governed by the statutory rules, yet the transfer being an incident of service, an employee can be transferred which may be governed by the administrative instruction since an employee has no right to be posted at a particular place.
It is clear from the judgments quoted above that transfer is an incident of service, it is the prerogative of the administration to decide the posting of individual employees and a transfer order is not to be interfered with unless it violates a statutorily mandated rule or is proved to be issued with mala fide intentions.
9. An alert notice was issued on 01.11.2022 where the name of the applicant also figured. Fresh options were called for vide letter dated 14.11.2022. These options were to be considered for transfers to be effected subsequently. The applicant did not represent against the alert notice nor did he exercise any option in terms of letter dated 14.11.2022. O.A No. 1285/2022 was filed in the context of transfer in 2022. Tribunal's order dated 22/07/2022 cannot in any manner be interpreted to mean that he had to be posted as per the option exercised by him on 12/07/2022 for all time to come. Moreover, the Tribunal had directed the respondents to make an honest endeavour to post him at one of the places opted by him. First priority for any organization is to place manpower at Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.07.31 11:35:41+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 16 O.A. 959 of 2023 particular stations as per requirement of the organization. There are no volunteers for Nasik. Nasik requires Accounts Officers. The applicant having spent more than 03 years in Kolkata is eligible to be posted out of Kolkata. In order to meet administrative needs, he has been posted to Nasik in accordance with the provisions of the transfer policy. Giving options for preferred places of posting does not create any right to be posted at such places. Similarly, existence of vacancies at his preferred place of posting does not automatically entitle him to be posted at these places, nor does posting of some other officers to these places can be said to be discriminatory. Applicant's transfer to Nasik in the same rank has not resulted in any adverse effect on his service conditions.
10. The impugned orders have been issued in administrative interest by the respondents in accordance with statutory provisions. I do not find any evidence of mala fide in these orders. It is held that the impugned orders do not suffer from any legal infirmity and no interference is called for.
11. O.A is dismissed being devoid of merits. No costs.
(Suchitto Kumar Das) Member (A) DB Digitally signed by Dhrubajyoti banerjee DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=4175, OID.2.5.4.65=1335885743022601584xv4l838ygvJ5Z, Phone= Dhrubajyoti banerjee 90ed2697919465890397c0e615eece98d6903a5f70d28686aacddcc72088fbe2, PostalCode=713409, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=3c1d4e3f19f312d282cb79397110e181e5ebdbf76bd6fbc3fbfbb1822c0f4c19, CN=Dhrubajyoti banerjee Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.07.31 11:35:41+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0