Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
Dhamendra Kumar vs South Central Railway on 5 March, 2026
OA 21/0056/2024
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH :: HYDERABAD
OA No.021/0056 of 2024 & MA No. 279/2024
Reserved on: 07.11.2025
Pronounced on: 05.03.2026
HON'BLE DR. LATA BASWARAJ PATNE, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MR.VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI, MEMBER (A)
Dharmendra Kumar, IRSME,
S/o. Late Ram Prasad, Aged 55 years,
Occ: Chief Motive Power Engineer (Diesel) (Group A)
South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam,
Secunderabad.
....Applicant
(By Advocate : Mr. K.R.K.V. Prasad)
Vs
1. Union of India,
Rep. by the Director (Establishmet) (Special),
Railway Board, Ministry of Railways, New Delhi.
2. The General Manager,
South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam,
Secunderabad.
3. The Geneal Manager,
Chittaranjan Locomotive Works,
Chittaranjan Post, Burdwan Dist,
West Bengal - 713 331.
....Respondents
(By Advocates: Mrs. B. Gayatri Varma, Sr. CGSC)
Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU
DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND
TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR
HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone=
0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER=
VISWESWARA RAO ESURU
d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, E=visweswararaoe@
gmail.com, CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.03.06 19:39:55+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0
1
OA 21/0056/2024
ORDER
(Per Hon'ble Dr.Lata Baswaraj Patne, Member(J)) The applicant sought the following relief in the OA:
"...the applicant humbly prays that this Hon‟ble Court may be pleased to call for the records pertaining to Office Order No. E(O)III-2024/TR/47 dated 24.01.2024 transferring the applicant from South Central Railway, Secunderabad to Chittaranjan Loco Works, West Bengal and set aside and quash the said orders with any other consequential proceeding; and direct the respondent Railways to continue the applicant in Headquarters of South Central Railway, Secunderabad till completes 4 years maximum tenure with all consequential benefits and pass such other order or orders as deemed fit in the interest of justice."
2(I) Brief facts of the case are that the applicant belongs to Indian Railway Service of Mechanical Engineer (IRSME) and presently, working in a Senior Administrative Grade post (SAG) as Chief Motive Power Engineer (Diesel) in Headquarters of SC Railway, Secunderabad. The applicant joined SC Railway on transfer from South Eastern Railway during March 2022 and even before completion of two years stay, he has been transferred from SC Railway to Chittaranjan Locomotive Works, West Bengal, vide order dt. 24.01.2024. (II) The contention of the applicant is that the said transfer is in violation of the transfer policy. He has been given seven transfers in seven years, whereas, number of SAG officers were allowed to continue for more number of years in SC Railway. The applicant pleads that his wife is undergoing treatment for serious health issues like Disc dislocation and suspected malignancy. He submitted representation for retention, but without considering the same, he is sought to be relieved. Hence, he filed this OA seeking the above relief and also sought interim relief of suspension of the operation of the impugned transfer order.
Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU
DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= 0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER= VISWESWARA RAO ESURU d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, E=visweswararaoe@ gmail.com, CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.06 19:39:55+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 2 OA 21/0056/2024 (III) At the time of admission, on 29.01.2024, this Tribunal granted an interim order staying the impugned transfer order dt. 24.01.2024.
3(I) On notice, the respondents have appeared through their counsel and a reply statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents 1 & 2. The respondents have submitted a preliminary objection that Rule 226 of IREC clearly lays down unfettered power of the President to transfer a Railway servant to any other Department or Railway or Railway Establishment including a project in or out of India. It is further stated that a Comprehensive Transfer Policy for Railway Officers has been issued by the Railway Board vide letter dt. 31.08.2015 in supercession of all existing instructions and subsequently, an Addendum to the said policy was issued vide letter dt.12.12.2018. It is the contention of the respondents that it was never the intention of the Railway Board to obviate the Rules like Rule 226 of IREC issued by the President under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, which are statutorily superior to the instructions issued by the Railway Board and the Railway Board instructions are subservient to the rules contained in IREC. Move over, the IREC Provisions have not been amended. It is further stated that the impugned order clearly indicates that it was the President who approved the order. The power of the President, as envisaged in the IREC, cannot be permitted to be frustrated by yielding to certain safeguards provided in the letter dt. 31.08.2015. It is stated by the respondents that all the transfers were done in administrative exigency. The applicant, being a Group „A‟ officer, holding the post of Joint Secretary level, with Senior Administrative Grade in Level-14, should understand that transfer is an incidence of service. Despite the same, pleading before this Tribunal that he is being victimized is misleading.
Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU
DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= 0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER= VISWESWARA RAO ESURU d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, E=visweswararaoe@ gmail.com, CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.06 19:39:55+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 3 OA 21/0056/2024 (II) The applicant was posted as Chief Motive & Power Engineer/ DSL at South Central Railway w.e.f. 09.03.2022 and was completing his minimum tenure of two years service in SC Railway as per instructions contained in Railway Board‟s Comprehensive Transfer Policy dt. 31.08.2015, as per which, normally, minimum tenure on a particular post at a time will be 2 years and maximum will be 5 years. However, in administrative exigencies, relaxation may be granted by the cadre controlling officer. It is submitted that the General Manager/ Chittaranjan Locomotive Works had requested for posting one suitable SAG/IRSME officer at CLW. Therefore, the cadre controlling officer of the applicant in the Ministry of Railways has considered the above request and decided to transfer the applicant from SC Railway to CLW in administrative exigency, and not otherwise, as alleged by the applicant. The respondents stated that the grading secured by him in his APARs has no bearing on his transfer.
(III) It the contention of the respondents that the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments held that it is an accepted principle that in public service, transfer is an incident of service and it is an implied condition of service that the appointing authority has a wide discretion in the matter. The Government is the best judge to decide how to distribute and utilize the services of its employees. It is the choice of the employer to determine how long the service of an employee is required in a particular post or at a particular place. The order of transfer does not affect any legal rights of the employee and the Court or Tribunal cannot interfere with an order of transfer of posting, which is made in public interest or on administrative exigency.
4. The respondents have relied upon the following judgments of the Hon‟ble Courts in support of their case:
Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU
DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= 0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER= VISWESWARA RAO ESURU d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, E=visweswararaoe@ gmail.com, CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.06 19:39:55+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 4 OA 21/0056/2024
(i) Shilpi Bose & ors v. State of Bihar & Ors [AIR 1991 SC 532]
(ii) N.K. Singh V. Union of India, dt. 29.08.1994
(iii) Judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in State of UP & Ors v. Gobardhan Lal [AIR 2004 SC 2165]
(iv) Hon‟ble High Court of Kerala in M.P. Mayadevi & Anr. v Canara Bank [WP (C) No. 19118 of 2015) dt. 13.07.2015
(v) Hon‟ble High Court of Madras in C. Parandhaman v. The Director General, CRPF (WP No. 38545 of 2015) dt. 07.08.2017.
(vi) Coordinate Bench at Bangalore Bench OA No. 170/00467/2017 dt. 03.01.2018
(vii) Coordinate Bench at Mumbai in OA No. 66/2018 dt. 23.02.2018
5. The applicant filed rejoinder, inter alia, stating that he is currently holding the post of Higher Administrative Grade, Level-15 on Non-Functional basis, whereas the respondents have erroneously stated that he is in level-14. It is stated by the applicant that the respondents knowing fully well about the existence of Rule 226 of IREC being operational, issued the transfer policy. Further, the guidelines issued by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in T.S.R. Subramanian & Ors v. Union of India have not been followed. It is stated by the applicant that the Railway Board vide order dt. 08.03.2024 filled up the vacancy at Chittaranjan Locomotive Works by retaining Shri Bikash Chandra Ghosh by cancelling his earlier transfer order dt. 11.01.2024 to Eastern Railway and as such, the request of GM/CLW has been met. The impugned transfer order has been issued purportedly on the request of the GM/LCW dt. 22.12.2023 to post one suitable SAG/IRSME officer at LCW. But, ignoring his status as Non-functional HAG, he has been transferred. Further, any one SAG/IRSME officer from any zonal railway, preferably from the nearby zones could have been posted, wherein plenty of SAG grade officers are working. Even otherwise, those who are long standing in SC Railway viz., N. Srinivas Reddy; B. Sinku; Smt. G. Sumana; S. Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= 0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER= VISWESWARA RAO ESURU d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, E=visweswararaoe@ gmail.com, CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.06 19:39:55+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 5 OA 21/0056/2024 Srinivas and NSR Prasad, have not been disturbed. Thus, he has been discriminated.
6. The respondents filed MA No. 279/2024 seeking to vacate the interim order dt. 29.01.2024. The respondents 1 & 2 filed reply affidavit to the rejoinder filed by the applicant, stating that the applicant has not averred any personal bias or malice and he has also not claimed that he is not liable to be transferred anywhere in India. The applicant cannot be a master of his own suitability against a post and that power is vested in his cadre controlling authority. Under FR 11, 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. Further, FR 15, Govt. of India empowers the President to transfer an employee. In terms of the transfer policy, transfer/ posting and suitability of IRSME officers is decided by the Cadre Controlling Authority i.e. Member (Traction & Rolling Stock)/ Railway Board. Vide GM/CLW‟s letter dated 22.12.2023, posting of a SAG/IRSME officer was required. NFHAG or SAG officer holds the same post and one officer transferred interchangeably as holding NFHAG or SAG as per administrative requirements, as decided by the Cadre Controlling authority.
7. The applicant also filed additional rejoinder to the additional reply filed by the respondents. It is stated by the applicant that as per the transfer policy dt. 31.08.2015, transfers and postings will be done against clear vacancy of sanctioned post, whereas, without there being a vacancy in CLW, he was transferred vide the impugned order and as on that date, 2 SAG sanctioned posts were filled up and there was no vacancy. Sri Amitava Chowdhaury, Chief Mechanical Engineer/ Manufacturing and Sri N. Sahoo, Chief Mechanical Engineer/ Loco were occupying those 2 SAG sanctioned posts. Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU
DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= 0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER= VISWESWARA RAO ESURU d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, E=visweswararaoe@ gmail.com, CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.06 19:39:55+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 6 OA 21/0056/2024
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
9. Learned counsel for applicant mainly argued on the point that the applicant, who belongs to Indian Railway Service of Mechanical Engineer (IRSME), was transferred from South Eastern Railway to the South Central Railway during March 2022 and even before completion of two years stay at SC Railway, he has been transferred from SC Railway to Chittanranjan Locomotive Works, West Bengal, vide order dt. 24.01.2024, in violation of the Comprehensive Transfer Policy, dt. 31.08.2015, issued by the Railway Board. It is the further argument of the counsel for applicant that the applicant has acted on seven transfers within a span seven years without raising any grievance.
When number of SAG officers were allowed to continue for longer period in SC Railway, the applicant has been transferred to a far off place under the impugned order and though the applicant submitted representation informing that his wife is undergoing treatment for serious health issues like Disc dislocation and suspected malignancy and sought for retention, the same was not considered. The other offices who are allowed to continue for more than 4 years have been shown administrative favouritism, while transferring the applicant, who has not even completed minimum tenure of 2 years at SC Railway, making him liable for transfer as per the transfer policy. Learned counsel drew our attention to the clause (1) (iv) of the transfer policy, as per which, transfers and postings will be done against clear vacancy of a sanctioned post and clause (1)(vii) prescribes that normally, minimum tenure on a particular post at a time will be 2 years and maximum tenure will be 5 years. Clause (viii) stipulates that total stay at a stretch at a particular station should not be more than 10 years and the total cumulative stay (in broken spells) should not be more than 15 years. Despite the Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= 0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER= VISWESWARA RAO ESURU d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, E=visweswararaoe@ gmail.com, CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.06 19:39:55+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 7 OA 21/0056/2024 said clear guidelines, the applicant has been transferred even before completion of minimum tenure of 2 years at SC Railway though the fact that his wife is suffering serious health issues has been brought to the notice of the respondents.
10. Learned Counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court of Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 22599/2007, dt. 11.05.2007, wherein, it was observed that the transfer of the employee was not on administrative ground and the transfer was not bonafide, but for collateral and extraneous reasons. Learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Hon‟ble Kerala High Court in Balan Vadasseri v. District Panchayat Officer, Malappuram, 1976 (1) Lab IC 273, wherein, while upholding that transfer on administrative exigencies cannot be interfered, the Hon‟ble Court held that it does not mean that the court has no jurisdiction to intervene in a case of transfer, which is apparently not made for administrative reasons, but, a case of harassment of the Government official. Learned counsel also cited the order of Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal at Ernakulam, dt. 15.02.2016, in OA No. 378/2015, wherein, it has been observed that fairness is expected of a public authority while dealing with its subordinates. Learned counsel further relied on the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in T.P. Senkumar IPS v. Union of India & Ors, (2017) 6 SCC 801, wherein, it was held that validity of administrative order must be judged by reasons mentioned therein and the same cannot be supplemented by other reasons through affidavit or otherwise in subsequent proceedings. Thus, the counsel for applicant argued that the impugned order is not on administrative reasons and the applicant has been discriminated.Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU
DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= 0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER= VISWESWARA RAO ESURU d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, E=visweswararaoe@ gmail.com, CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.06 19:39:55+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 8 OA 21/0056/2024
11. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents vehemently opposed the relief on the ground that the impugned transfer order has been issued on administrative grounds with the approval of the President. It is the argument of the counsel for respondents that the Deputy Chief Personnel Officer/ Gazetted has been authorised to file reply on behalf of the respondents including the General Manager/ SC Railway and the Railway Board‟s instructions dt. 04.06.1992 provide that the said officer authorised to sign all plaints and written statements in suits in any court of civil jurisdiction by or against the Central Government in exercise of powers conferred by Rule 1 of Order XXVII of the 1 st Schedule of the CPC, 1908. Learned counsel has drawn our attention to Order of the Railway Board vide RBE No. 91/92 dt. 04.06.1992 to show that the Deputy Chief Personal Officer of a Railway is authorised to file reply statement.
Therefore, the allegation of the applicant that reply statement has been filed by the respondents through an authority, not competent to do so, is incorrect. It is submitted that the transfer of the applicant is purely in administrative exigency. The applicant, being a Group „A‟ officer, holding Joint Secretary level post has transfer liability. It is stated that the applicant was posted as Chief Motive & Power Engineer/DSL at SC Railways w.e.f. 09.03.2022 and he was about to complete his minimum two years tenure in SC Railway, as required under the transfer policy dt.31.08.2015. Therefore, in administrative exigencies, relaxation can be granted by the cadre controlling officer.
12. Learned counsel for respondents further argued that the General Manager/CLW, vide letter dt. 22.12.2023, requested for posting one suitable SAG/IRSME officer at CLW. Therefore, the cadre controlling officer of the applicant in the Ministry of Railways has considered the above request and Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= 0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER= VISWESWARA RAO ESURU d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, E=visweswararaoe@ gmail.com, CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.06 19:39:55+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 9 OA 21/0056/2024 decided to transfer the applicant from SC Railway to CLW in administrative exigency, and not otherwise, as alleged by the applicant. Learned counsel has drawn our attention to Rule 226 of IREC, Vol. I, which lays down that in exigencies of service, it is open for the President to transfer any Railway servant to any place or project, in or outside India. It is further argued that in line with the transfer policy, transfer/ posting and suitability of IRSME officers is decided by the Cadre Controlling Authority i.e. Member (Traction & Rolling Stock)/ Railway Board. It is further submitted that NFHAG or SAG officer holds the same post and an officer can be transferred interchangeably, though holding NFHAG or SAG, as per administrative requirements, as decided by the Cadre Controlling authority. The respondents‟ counsel submits that the applicant has no grounds whatsoever to challenge the impugned transfer order as the same has been ordered in administrative exigencies and the applicant, being a Senior Group „A‟ Railway Officer of the IRSME is expected to carry out the said transfer as per the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in S.C. Saxena v.
Union of India, [2006] (9) SCC 583.
13. It is the further argument of the counsel for respondents that the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments held that it is an accepted principle that in public service, transfer is an incident of service and it is an implied condition of service that the appointing authority has a wide discretion in the matter. The Government is the best judge to decide how to distribute and utilize the services of its employees. It is the choice of the employer to determine how long the service of an employee is required in a particular post or at a particular place. The order of transfer does not affect any legal rights of the employee and the Court or Tribunal cannot interfere with an order of transfer of posting, which is Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= 0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER= VISWESWARA RAO ESURU d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, E=visweswararaoe@ gmail.com, CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.06 19:39:55+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 10 OA 21/0056/2024 made in public interest or on administrative exigency. The employee must report at transferred place and raise his grievance thereafter, unless and until the applicants proves that the transfer is with a malafide intention or in violation of any statutory provision. In the instant case, the applicant has not levelled any such allegation of malafides against the authorities, except saying that some of the officers have been retained, which is also incorrect. Learned counsel submitted that out of the offices, whose names have been mentioned by the applicant, some have been transferred and one officer has retired on 31.05.2025.
The officers who are with NFHAG and working as SAG cannot claim as a matter of right to remain at a particular place. Learned counsel submitted that the claim of the applicant that his wife is suffering with serious illhealth, whereas, the medical document does not show the same and the said plea is taken by the applicant only to gain sympathy from this Tribunal. Thus, the intention of the applicant is clear not to obey the transfer order by making such lame excuses. By virtue of the interim order granted by this Tribunal, the applicant has continued in SC Railway for more than two years after the impugned transfer order. Learned counsel, therefore, prayed that the applicant is not entitled for any relief and prayed for dismissal of the OA.
14. It is not in dispute that the applicant is a SAG level officer. Considering the request of the GM/CLW to post one suitable SAG/IRSME officer at CLW, the cadre controlling authority has decided to transfer the applicant from SC Railway to CLW in administrative exigency. The claim of the applicant is that he has been transferred even before completion of minimum tenure of 2 years as postulated under the comprehensive transfer policy dt. 31.08.2015 issued by the Railway Board. We have gone through the said transfer policy and the relevant Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= 0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER= VISWESWARA RAO ESURU d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, E=visweswararaoe@ gmail.com, CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.06 19:39:55+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 11 OA 21/0056/2024 provisions thereof are reproduced hereunder:
"1. Xxx
(i) Ordinarily a Group „A‟ officer will not be transferred out of his allotted Zone/ Unit till Selection Grade.
xxx
(iv) Transfers and posting will be done against clear vacancy of a sanctioned post. Xxx
(vii) Normally, minimum tenure on a particular post at a time will be 2 years and maximum tenure will be 5 years. For sensitive posts, maximum tenure will be 4 years. Minimum tenure will not be applicable for Junior Scale/ Senior Scale Officers of Group „A‟. However, in administrative exigencies, relaxation may be granted by cadre controlling officer. "
An addendum dt. 12.12.2018 has been issued to the said transfer policy, wherein, inter alia, it is mentioned as under:
"(i) Stay only at Head Quarters of the Zonal Railway should normally be counted for the purpose of continuous stay.
Xxx
(iv) Critical/ Terminal illness of dependents requiring stay at a station for the sake of continuity of treatment can be considered on case to case basis."
15. It is to be noted that the applicant is mainly raising his grievance against the transfer order on the ground that his wife is suffering with Disc dislocation at L4-5 and L5-S1 and also suspicious for malignancy. We have gone through the MRI report of the applicant dt. 10.01.2023, wherein, the finding given is "Small anterior osteophytes at L3 to L5 levels" and "Disc desiccation at L4-L5 and L5- S1 levels". But, the applicant has mentioned in OA as Disc dislocation at L4-5 and L5-S1, which is incorrect. We have also perused the Test Report dt. 28.08.2023, wherein the impression given is that "Bilateral retroareolar duct ectasia with debris within the ducts - (BIRADS - III). The said test report gives a normal finding, probably benign lesion which requires short interval follow up ultrasound. Though the said report is dt. 28.08.2023, the applicant has not filed any material as to the further evaluation of his wife. Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU
DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= 0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER= VISWESWARA RAO ESURU d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, E=visweswararaoe@ gmail.com, CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.06 19:39:55+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 12 OA 21/0056/2024
16. We have perused the judgments of the Hon‟ble Courts, cited by the respondents, in support of their case:
(i) In Shilpi Bose & ors v. State of Bihar & Ors [AIR 1991 SC 532] the Hon‟ble Apex Court held as under:
"...A Government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one place or the other, he is liable to be transferred from one place to the other. Transfer Orders issued by the competent authority do not violate any of his legal rights. Even if a transfer Order is passed in violation of executive instructions or Orders, the Courts ordinarily should not interfere with the Order instead affected party should approach the higher authorities in the Department. If the Courts continue to interfere with day-to-day transfer Orders issued by the Government and its subordinate authorities, there will be complete chaos in the Administration which would not be conducive to public interest. The High Court over looked these aspects in interfering with the transfer Orders."
(ii) In Union of India & Ors v. S.L. Abbas [1993 AIR 2444] the Hon‟ble Apex Court held as under:
"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 trans- fer a government servant from one post to another". That the respondent is lia- ble to transfer anywhere in India is not in dispute. It is not the case of the res- pondent that order of his transfer is vitiated by mala fides on the part of the au- thority making the order,- though the Tribunal does say so merely because cer- tain guidelines issued by the Central Government are not followed, with which finding we shall deal later. The respondent attributed "mischief" to his imme- diate 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 set-back some time ago. He relies upon certain executive instructions issued by the Govern- ment in that behalf. Those instructions are in the nature of guidelines. They do not have statutory force. 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 inter- fere 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 administra- tion. 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 gov- ernment employee a legally enforceable right."
(iii) In N.K. Singh V. Union of India, 1995 AIR 423, 1994 SCC (6) 98, Hon‟ble Supreme Court held as under:
Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU
DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= 0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER= VISWESWARA RAO ESURU d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, E=visweswararaoe@ gmail.com, CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.06 19:39:55+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 13 OA 21/0056/2024 "The tendency of anyone to consider himself indispensable is undemocratic and unhealthy. Assessment of worth must be left to the bona fide decision of the superiors in service and their honest assessment accepted as a part of service discipline. Transfer of a government servant in a transferable service is a nec- essary incident of the service career. Assessment of the quality of men is to be made by the superiors taking into account several factors including suitability of the person for a particular post and exigencies of administration. Several imponderables requiring formation of a subjective opinion in that sphere may be involved, at times. The only realistic approach is to leave it to the wisdom of that hierarchical superiors to make that decision. Unless the decision is viti- ated by mala fides or infraction of any professed norm or principle governing the transfer, which alone can be scrutinised judicially, there are no judicially manageable standards for scrutinising all transfers and the courts lack the necessary expertise for personnel management of all government departments. This must be left, in public interest, to the departmental heads subject to the limited judicial scrutiny indicated.
24. The private rights of the appellant being unaffected by the transfer, he would have been well advised to leave the matter to those in public life who felt aggrieved by his transfer to fight their own battle in the forum available to them. The appellant belongs to a disciplined force and as a senior officer would be making several transfers himself. Quite likely many of his men, like him, may be genuinely aggrieved by their transfers. If even a few of them fol-
low his example and challenge the transfer in courts, the appellant would be spending his time defending his actions instead of doing the work for which he holds the office. Challenge in courts of a transfer when the career prospects remain unaffected and there is no detriment to the government servant must be eschewed and interference by courts should be rare, only when a judicially manageable and permissible ground is made out. This litigation was ill- ad- vised."
(iv) Hon‟ble Supreme Court in State of UP & Ors v. Gobardhan Lal [AIR 2004 SC 2165] held as under:
"..Even administrative guidelines for regulating transfers or containing transfer policies at best may afford an opportunity to the officer or servant concerned to approach their higher authorities for redress but cannot have the consequence of depriving or denying the competent authority to transfer a particular offic- er/servant to any place in public interest and as is found necessitated by exigen- cies of service as long as the official status is not affected adversely and there is no infraction of any career prospects such as seniority, scale of pay and secured emoluments. This Court has often reiterated that the order of transfer made even in transgression of administrative guidelines cannot also be interfered with, as they do not confer any legally enforceable rights, unless, as noticed supra, shown to be vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any statutory provi- sion.
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 Au- thorities 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 trans- fer 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 Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= 0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER= VISWESWARA RAO ESURU d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, E=visweswararaoe@ gmail.com, CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.06 19:39:55+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 14 OA 21/0056/2024 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."
(v) Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of S.C. Saxena v. Union of India & Ors [2006 (9) SCC 583] held as under:
"...It is the duty to first report for work where he is transferred and make a representation as to what may be his personal problems. This tendency of non- reporting at the place of posting and indulging in litigation needs to be curbed.."
(vi) Hon‟ble High Court of Kerala in M.P. Mayadevi & Anr. v Canara Bank [WP (C) No. 19118 of 2015) dt. 13.07.2015 "13. In the case on hand, the petitioner have no specific case in the Writ Petition that, Ext.P2 and P3 orders of transfer are vitiated by malafides. They have also no case that, the said orders are passed on extraneous considerations or issued without any factual foundation. They have not disputed the specific stand taken by the 1st respondent Bank in its statement that, the petitioners who are working as Senior Manager and Manger respectively have all India transfer liability as per the transfer policy of the Bank. They have also no specific case that, their services are not required at the respective branches under Mysore Circle. The petitioners, who are admittedly working on a transferable post with all India transfer liability, cannot claim as a matter of right that, they should be retained in a particular station or State. It is the choice of the 1st respondent Bank to determine how long the services of an employee is required in a particular place. Further, an order of transfer is an incident of service and it does not affect any legal rights of an employee. In the absence of a specific case in the Writ Petition that, the power of transfer is abused by issuing Exts.P2 and P3 orders of transfer, or that the orders of transfer are not made in public interest, but for collateral purposes or with oblique motives, the petitioners cannot succeed in their challenge against the said orders of transfer, merely on the ground of the personal inconvenience stated in their representations, which are also reproduced in Paras.7 and 8 of the Writ Petition."
(vii) Hon‟ble High Court of Madras in C. Parandhaman v. The Director General, CRPF (WP No. 38545 of 2015) dt. 07.08.2017.
"10. This Court is very much conscious that administrative transfers are allowed to be implemented in the interest of administration. It is not for the Courts to interfere or exercise the power of judicial review in the matter of transfers. Only on exceptional circumstances i.e. to say in the event of violation of any statutory rules, the power of judicial review can be exercised and not otherwise. Violation of certain guidelines/ instructions given in the form of circular or orders, will not confer any legal right on the employees. Xxxx
11. A Government servant holding a transferable post, has no vested right to remain posted at one place or the other and 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 right. Even if a transfer order is passed in violation of executive instructions or orders, the Courts ordinarily should not interfere with the order, instead the affected party should approach the higher authorities of the department. If Courts continue to interfere 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 Courts Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= 0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER= VISWESWARA RAO ESURU d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, E=visweswararaoe@ gmail.com, CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.06 19:39:55+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 15 OA 21/0056/2024 need not overlook these aspects while interfering with the orders of transfers.
In view of the above, the applicant has not made out a case for our interference with the impugned transfer order.
As far as the judgments relied upon by the applicant, it is to be noted that the applicant has not even raised the plea of malice. Therefore, the judgments cited by the applicant are not of any assistance to him. It is also to be noted that the contention of the applicant that he has been selectively transferred while retaining other long standing officers in SC Railway is also incorrect. The respondents have furnished the details with regard to the officers mentioned by the applicant in his OA. As seen from the said information, N. Srinivasa Reddy, SAG, has been transferred to RRB/SC. Birendra Sinku, NF-HAG has since retired on 31.05.2025; G. Sumana and S. Srinivas, NF-HAG are continuing in SCR; and N.S.R. Prasad has been transferred to ICF. Hence, we are of the view that the respondents have justified that the impugned order has been issued in the administrative exigency. Further, it is to be noted that the applicant, in his representation sent through email on 28.01.2024, requested the respondents to cancel the transfer order and retain him at the present place for some time to discharge his personal issues. By virtue of the interim order dt. 29.01.2024, the applicant has continued at the present place for more than two years and thereby, his request to retain him at the present place for some time has been fulfilled.
17. It is settled law that the applicant cannot question the administrative exigency and under judicial review, this Tribunal cannot interfere in the matter of transfer, which is made in the administrative exigencies. Further, the respondents are empowered to utilize the services of the applicant on administrative exigencies under Rule 226 of IREC, which they have exercised.Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU
DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= 0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER= VISWESWARA RAO ESURU d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, E=visweswararaoe@ gmail.com, CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.06 19:39:55+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 16 OA 21/0056/2024
18. In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that the applicant has not made out a case warranting interference of this Tribunal with the impugned transfer order.
19. Accordingly, the OA is dismissed. Interim order is vacated and the MA No. 279/2024 is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
(VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI) (DR.LATA BASWARAJ PATNE) MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J) /evr/ Digitally signed by VISWESWARA RAO ESURU DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= 0e901e723fea8352e441786b540b9508e216375b29f0256f1b1f7659293369eb, SERIALNUMBER= VISWESWARA RAO ESURU d046cc70fb37100c36240d3e23862fbf9be922f9e6f5b1358ef8dc2f9d1f8936, E=visweswararaoe@ gmail.com, CN=VISWESWARA RAO ESURU Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.03.06 19:39:55+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 17