Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
G Shaji Kumar vs M/O Agriculture on 1 January, 2026
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
O.A.No.180/00320/2025
Thursday, this the 1st day of January, 2026
CORAM:
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE K. HARIPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE Mrs.V.RAMA MATHEW, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
G. Shaji Kumar, S/o. late Gopinathan, Aged 56 Years, T-5, Grade Driver,
Central Tuber Crops Research Institute (CTCRI) Sreekariyam,
Thiruvananthapuram - 695 017, Residing at Anjaneyam, 37A, Temple
Road, Chittizha, Vattappara P.O. Thiruvananthapuram District
Pin- 695028.
-Applicant
[By Advocates: Sri. T.H.Chacko, Sri. K.Sajan Kuriakose, Sri. V.K. James]
Versus
1. Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) Represented by its
Secretary, Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi - 110001
2. The Director, Central Tuber Crops Research Institute (CTCRI)
Sreekariyam, Thiruvananthapuram - 695 017.
3. The Senior Administrative Officer, Central Tuber Crops Research Institute
(CTCRI) Sreekariyam, Thiruvananthapuram - 695 017.
-Respondents
[By Advocate: Smt. K.V. Bhadra Kumari]
The application having been heard on 26.11.2025, the Tribunal on
01.01.2026 delivered the following order:
Deepa S 2026.01.01 14:10:22+05'30'
O.A.No.320/2025 2
ORDER
Justice K.Haripal, Judicial Member Applicant is a Technical Officer Grade-V in the Central Tuber Crops Research Institute, CTCRI, Sreekaryam, Thiruvananthapuram, which is an institution functioning under the Indian Council of Agricultural Research, ICAR, represented by the Secretary, Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi. The 2 nd respondent is the Director under whom the applicant is working as driver and the 3 rd respondent is the Senior Administrative Officer.
2. Applicant had commenced service as T-1 Grade Driver on 20.03.2002. He has risen to T-5 Grade Driver on 20.03.2022. The averments in the O.A. indicate that in every 5th year he has been granted promotion; on 20.03.2007 he became T-2 Grade Driver, on 20.03.2012 he was promoted to the post of T-3 Grade Driver, he became T-4 Grade Driver on 20.03.2017 and then T-5 Grade Driver on 20.03.2022. While so, by Annexure-A8 order dated 25.06.2025 issued by the 3 rd respondent he stands transferred to the ICAR- CTCRI Regional Office at Bhubaneswar. The applicant has approached the Tribunal aggrieved by Annexure-A8 transfer order, praying to call for the records leading to Annexure-A8 and to quash the same, to direct the 2 nd respondent to permit the applicant to continue in CTCRI, Thiruvananthapuram as if Annexure-A8 order had not been issued, to declare that Annexure-A8 Deepa S 2026.01.01 14:10:22+05'30' O.A.No.320/2025 3 order passed by the 3rd respondent is arbitrary and with malafide intention.
3. Applicant alleges malafides in issuing such an order. According to him, it was issued without hearing him and without understanding the problems and predicament of the applicant, without his request or without abolishing the posts; it is not a transfer on promotion nor a punishment transfer or rotational transfer or a compassionate transfer. It was issued with malafide intention to accommodate a stooge of the respondents on daily wage in the place of the applicant. Therefore, he alleges that it is arbitrary, biased, discriminatory and unfair.
4. Further it is stated that, though it was shown that it was issued in public interest, no public interest is involved in the transfer. The applicant has large number of personal difficulties in moving out to a distant place in Bhubaneswar from Thiruvanthapuram, which is about 2000 kms away from his home town. He is facing a case as MC 41/2023 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Nedumangad, where, under a mediation agreement, he is paying Rs.11,000/-, Rs.5,500/- each, to his two daughters as monthly maintenance allowance. Moreover, he is suffering from Benign Prostatic Hypertrophy (BPH) and surgery was suggested as early as possible. He is also suffering from severe backbone pain which needs extra treatment from a Neuro Surgeon in Trivandrum Medical College. There is no one in his family to Deepa S 2026.01.01 14:10:22+05'30' O.A.No.320/2025 4 look after his aged and ailing mother who is dependent on him. Thus, immediately on receipt of Annexure-A8 order he gave Annexure-A9 representation, but it has been rejected without considering the material contentions raised by him.
5. Further, it is submitted that the transfer has been effected without following the guidelines on the subject, no transfer committee was constituted, that Annexure-A8 has been issued by an incompetent officer the 3rd respondent, who is not his appointing authority, who has no power to transfer him out of Thiruvananthapuram, that he has only less than four years service to retire. Therefore, on any consideration, the order is illegal since there is no transfer committee constituted, everything was done without consulting the transfer committee, by an incompetent officer. Moreover, the transfer is discriminatory in nature. There are two Drivers in Thiruvananthapuram office, the other one is junior to him. Therefore, the respondents should have adopted the policy of 'last come first go'. Instead, such an unwarranted transfer order has been issued to trouble him, which is highly discriminatory.
6. The respondents have filed a detailed reply disputing all the contentions raised by the applicant in the O.A. According to them, CTCRI under the ICAR, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Government of Deepa S 2026.01.01 14:10:22+05'30' O.A.No.320/2025 5 India has only one Regional Station located in Bhubaneswar, the capital city of Orissa. The Regional Station in Bhubaneswar takes care of research programmes of tuber crops important to east and north-east regions of the country where about 40% of tuber crops are cultivated and where researchable issues are relatively more. Under the Viksit Bharat 2027 programme, the Indian Institute of Research Council has formulated and approved future research programmes, whereunder numerous new projects worth more than Rs.10 crores have been entrusted with the respondents approved for Regional Station, Bhubaneswar by the Government of India and the departments under the Government of Odisha based on national priorities set for 2047. Recently, two other new research projects were also sanctioned for Regional Station, Bhubaneswar by NABARD worth Rs.123.21 lakhs as well as Government of Odisha worth Rs.164.45 lakhs. Apart from the above, there is a budget allocation of Rs.100 lakhs for implementing the Flagship Project, Tribal Sub Plan at the Regional Station, Bhubaneswar. That project is implemented mainly in tribal districts of Odisha such as Gajpati, Koraput, Kandhmal etc. Successful completion of this project within the stipulated time frame essentially requires regular and extensive travel by road and transport of research materials, field equipments, experimental samples, small farm implements and tuber crops processing machinery etc. Such Deepa S 2026.01.01 14:10:22+05'30' O.A.No.320/2025 6 projects of public interest and national priority of Government of India cannot be completed without regular use in the available Government vehicle at Regional Station, Bhubaneswar. The contribution of a driver in the successful completion of research programmes of an Agricultural Research Institute like ICAR-CTCRI is crucial and cannot be undervalued. For ensuring timly transportation of scientists, research materials, field equipments and experimental samples among fields, laboratories and partner institutions, drivers facilitate seamless execution of time bound research activities. Their commitment to safety and availability even during odd hours significantly support the logistical backbone of field research operations.
7. According to the respondents, while two technical staff (Drivers) are currently posted at ICAR-CTCRI, Thiruvananthapuram there is presently no driver posted at the Regional Station in Bhubaneswar. Under these circumstances, due to administrative exigency Annexure-A8 order was issued transferring the applicant.
8. Further, the respondents have stated that the applicant is an efficient Technical Officer, there are no bad remarks against him and his APAR during the past three years are rated as 'very good'.
9. Further, referring to the order of appointment and the acceptance of the condition, Annexures-R2(d) and R2(e), it is stated that he is Deepa S 2026.01.01 14:10:22+05'30' O.A.No.320/2025 7 liable to serve in any institute or office of ICAR located in anywhere in India. Such a condition was accepted by the applicant. Annexure-A8 was issued in the administrative exigency, in larger public interest to meet the national priorities of Government of India. It was issued to ensure timely execution and completion of national priority projects and to prevent significant financial loss to the Government of India. In the circumstances, posting of a permanent driver has become an urgent and unavoidable administrative necessity and that was how the Annexure-A8 was issued.
10. Referring to the hand book of delegation of powers, it is submitted that the Director has full power to transfer an employee, either technical or non-technical, to any station of the Institute.
11. It is further stated that the applicant does not have any such serious ailment. Even if he has any ailment, he can get appropriate treatment from the All India Institute of Medical Sciences and there are 16 empanelled hospitals under CGHS in Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar is a developed city, if any such requirement is found necessary, that will be met from there itself. The respondents have also assured that the ICAR-CTCRI will provide all eligible medical reimbursement to him without any delay as per existing Rules.
12. Further, it is stated that the applicant is working in Thiruvananthapuram without any transfer for the last 23 years. He has now Deepa S 2026.01.01 14:10:22+05'30' O.A.No.320/2025 8 reached pay matrix level-7 and is a Gazetted Officer in Group-B category and his salary during June 2025 was Rs.91,165/-. Therefore, he is expected to shoulder weighter responsibilities by actively contributing to the Institute in research and development programmes and that was why he was chosen to be transferred to Bhubaneswar, which was done only in public interest, taking into account his proven track record of commendable service over the last 23 years.
13. The allegation of malafides is denied. There are two drivers in Thiruvanthapuram office. Even if the applicant is transferred, the other driver will be able to manage the two vehicles available in Thiruvananthapuram office. The average daily use of staff car is only 21 kms a day, which is evident from Annexure-R2(m). The average use of the other vehicle also is less.
14. It is also submitted that the Annexure-A8 was issued by the 3 rd respondent, head of office, who has power to issue such an order. Thus the respondents have sought to dismiss the O.A.
15. The applicant filed a detailed rejoinder reiterating his contentions in the O.A. Further it is stated that the applicant has never worked outside Kerala, he has no knowledge of Hindi or Oriya. Therefore, only an experienced driver familiar with the roads, cross roads and various streets, project site commanding language fluency will be able to do justice to the Deepa S 2026.01.01 14:10:22+05'30' O.A.No.320/2025 9 work. So, according to him, the other driver K.Sunil Kumar who is presently working as T-4 Grade Driver and is on the verge of further promotion to T-5 is younger in age, healthy and be able to speak different languages including Hindi is more suitable to be transferred. Moreover, the said Sunil Kumar has more than 13 years service left to his credit, whereas the applicant has to retire within less than four years. The representation given by him was rejected without showing human consideration and compassion. He has reiterated that there is no public interest involved, it was issued without constituting a transfer committee in colourable exercise of powers. It was issued wilfully violating the mandatory guidelines, in a vindictive manner. Therefore, considering his physical health he seeks his retention in Thiruvananthapuram.
16. The respondents filed an additional reply and stated that even though the impugned order was signed by the 3 rd respondent, it was issued at the instance of the 2nd respondent after obtaining written orders from him; to support the same, Annexure-R2(r) has been produced.
17. The applicant filed and additional rejoinder stating that the impugned order was passed without following the guidelines.
18. We heard Sri.T.H.Chacko, learned counsel for the applicant and Smt.K.V.Bhadrakumari, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
Deepa S 2026.01.01 14:10:22+05'30' O.A.No.320/2025 10
19. The learned counsel for the applicant has also relied on the decisions in Philomina C Jacob v. State of Kerala [2002 KHC 92], Dharmendra Kumar Srivastava v. Union of India and others [2023(1) AISLJ 115], Sumendra Das v. Tripura State Electricity Corporation Ltd. [2022(1) AISLJ 350], Pankaj Kumar Sharma v. State of Uttarakhand and another [2025(2) AISLJ 203], DR Ramesh Chandra Tyagi v. Union of India and others [(1994) 2 SCC 416] and order of the CAT, Guwahati Bench in O.A.265 of 2020 dated 09.12.2020 (Sri Bhaskar Misra v. Union of India and others).
20. According to the learned counsel, malafides is writ large in Annexure-A8, the mere fact that it was issued without constituting a transfer committee and with intention of appointing one Akhil, a temporary driver in Thiruvananthapuram office will prove the malafides. There was no necessity for transferring the applicant to Bhubaneswar at his last leg of service, who has various mental and physical difficulties. Even though detailed representations were given, the respondents have violated all the norms and guidelines and transferred the applicant. There is no administrative exigencies involving in the case.
21. On the other hand, according to the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, the Annexure-A8 has been issued in administrative exigency only and the applicant is not entitled to call such an exigency in question. The Deepa S 2026.01.01 14:10:22+05'30' O.A.No.320/2025 11 2nd respondent has power to issue such an order and the 3 rd respondent was only acting under the 2nd respondent. The respondents have detailed the administrative exigency and national interest involved in transferring him. Learned counsel also pointed out that the applicant has never gone out of Thiruvananthapuram for the last 23 years and valid grounds are not shown to interfere with the Annexure-A8 order.
22. We have stated in detail all the contentions raised by the parties. In fact the applicant has taken up all possible contentions to assail Annexure- A8 order, under which on 25.06.2025 the applicant, a T-5 Grade Driver has been transferred from Thiruvananthapuram to Bhubaneswar in public interest. Though the applicant has challenged the public interest as a false claim and said that it is intended to appoint in his place one Akhil, who is a daily wage driver, that has been denied by the respondents.
23. It is very clear from the personal profile of the applicant that he had entered service as a T-1 Grade Driver on 20.03.2002 and got all promotions and was appointed as T-5 Driver and now, from 2023 onwards he is a Gazetted Officer in Group-B cadre in level-7. For the first time in his 23 years service that he has been transferred out of Thiruvananthapuram. He is aggrieved by the same stating that it is vitiated by malafides.
24. Even though it has been repeatedly stated that it is vitiated by Deepa S 2026.01.01 14:10:22+05'30' O.A.No.320/2025 12 malafides, intended to appoint a stranger in his place etc., the respondents have stoutly denied the same. According to them, in Bhubaneswar, projects of national importance worth more than Rs.13 crores is on the pipeline, for implementing the same, the deployment of a regular driver is necessary. The Driver post in Bhubaneswar stood abolished, though there is a vehicle available, a regular driver is not posted. The implementation of various projects involves travel of the scientists, also transportation of materials etc., for which services of a permanent driver is absolutely necessary and that was why the applicant who is a senior driver with impeccable service record was posted in Bhubaneswar.
25. Even though the applicant said that there is no public interest involved, the respondents have stated that it is done in public interest only, in the interest of the organisation. Here, the public interest is the interest of the institution in which the applicant is working. It is for the persons at the helm of affairs of the institution to decide what is the interest of the organisation and this Tribunal cannot say that, that was done in malfide exercise of power, for which satisfactory and convincing materials have not been brought out by the applicant.
26. The applicant has highlighted various personal difficulties and family issues. He has an estranged family, is paying maintenance through Deepa S 2026.01.01 14:10:22+05'30' O.A.No.320/2025 13 Court to the girl children, that he has serious ailments for which treatment is taken in Thiruvananthapuram; he apprehends that he may not get appropriate treatment in Bhubaneswar. But the respondents have stated that Bhubaneswar is a developed city where large number of hospitals including All India Institute of Medical Sciences is functioning, there are 16 empanelled hospitals under CGHS and the applicant can take treatment from such centres.
27. The applicant said that he is suffering from Benign Prostatic Hypertrophy (BPH) and Prostatitis for the past two years, that he is taking treatment from PRS Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram. But the learned Standing Counsel has pointed out that it is very common that males above 50 years suffer from enlarged prostate for which treatments are available everywhere and for that reason the transfer order cannot be annulled. It was also pointed out that despite the contention that he has such ailments, he has never claimed any amount towards medical reimbursement.
28. Referring to Annexure-A10 guidelines for intra-institutional transfers, the applicant wanted to say that Annexure-A8 suffers since transfer committee was not constituted and it was not routed through the transfer committee. Similarly, it is pointed out that employees suffering from major ailments such as cancer, cardiac disease, kidney disease etc. may be considered for transfer to a place where better medical facilities are available Deepa S 2026.01.01 14:10:22+05'30' O.A.No.320/2025 14 or to the station which are near to their home town. In our assessment, both these contentions cannot salvage the applicant. The respondents have produced the Annexure-R2(h) hand book of delegation of powers, whereunder the delegation of powers to the Director of Research Institute/National Research Centres, whereunder full power has been conferred on him to transfer a scientist/technical staff from one post to another within the institute under FR 15. Schedule-II to Annexure-R2(h) also indicates that full powers are conferred on the Director for transferring Technician T-1 to Technician T-5 at ICAR institutes.
29. It is evident that Annexure-A8 was not routed through a transfer committee. But the Annexure-A10 guidelines is not a statute. It is only a guideline that is guiding the employer in the matter of issuing transfers within and without the institution. Therefore, it cannot be interpreted like a statute. Secondly, as indicated earlier, the hand book on delegation of powers confers full power on the Director to issue such orders in the interest of the institution which has been done here. It is also evident that the applicant does not suffer from any serious ailments as stated in clause (vii) of Annexure-A10. Therefore, the argument that the transfer was issued against the guidelines and without through a transfer committee also falls to the ground.
30. The contentions that Annexure-A8 was issued by the 3 rd Deepa S 2026.01.01 14:10:22+05'30' O.A.No.320/2025 15 respondent, an incompetent person also has no basis in the light of Annexure- R2(r) produced by the respondent showing that the 2 nd respondent himself had issued the orders and the 3 rd respondent had only communicated the same on behalf of the 2nd respondent.
31. The contentions that the transfer is discriminatory, it should have been given to one Sunil Kumar, who is junior to the applicant, that 'last come first go' principle should have been adopted etc. do not appeal to reason. The contentions of the respondents show that the said Sunil Kumar is junior to the applicant, but he had been working outside, in Orissa etc. for about ten years and came to Thiruvananthapuram about nine years back. But the applicant has never gone out of Thiruvananthapuram, and therefore, he cannot claim any special right to remain in Thiruvananthapuram itself.
32. It has also come out that the date of retirement of the applicant is on 31.05.2029. Even Annexure-A10 does not prohibit the transfer of an employee before two years of retirement.
33. Moreover, there is no such principle like 'last come first go' in transfer matters. It is for the employer to decide who should work where and not by the employee. He cannot dictate terms on the employer and say that instead of himself the said Sunil Kumar should be transferred to Bhubaneswar or that someone should be engaged on daily wages in Bhubaneswar etc. Deepa S 2026.01.01 14:10:22+05'30' O.A.No.320/2025 16 Those are matters for the employer to decide.
34. It is true that the applicant has nearly less than four years to retire from service. He had never expected a transfer after 23 years of service in Thiruvananthapuram. So, the order might have sent a shock to him. But for numerous reasons he cannot avoid such transfers which appears to have been done in administrative exigency only, as decided by the employer, who is the competent authority. Transfer is an incident of service. The applicant also was informed at the initial stage itself that he his bound to work anywhere in India where the ICAR-CTCRI institutions function. He has readily accepted the conditions. After having accepted such conditions, now he cannot be heard to say that he cannot go and that in his place someone else should be posted.
35. Since the applicant has failed to prove the malafides or any vitiating circumstance, we have constraints in interfering with such a transfer. It is the settled proposition of law that transfer effected in administrative exigency cannot be interfered in a light hearted manner by the Court or Tribunal. The Court or Tribunal cannot sit as an appellate authority over the exigencies or public interest projected by the employer.
36. Moreover, as rightly pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel, Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.Varadha Rao v. State of Karnataka and others [(1986) 4 SCC 131] has held as follows:
Deepa S 2026.01.01 14:10:22+05'30' O.A.No.320/2025 17 "Transfer of a government servant who is appointed to a particular cadre of transferable posts from one place to another is an ordinary incident of service. No government servant can claim to remain in a particular place or in a particular post unless, his appointment itself is to a specified, non-transferable post. Therefore, a transfer order per se made in the exigencies of service does not result in alteration of any of the conditions of service, express or implied, to the disadvantage of the concerned government servant............"
37. Here the applicant has projected very many inconveniences on his part, whereas the respondents wanted to say that it was done in public interest only. When the personal inconveniences are weighed with the public interest and interests of the institution, the latter should always prevail. Therefore, we decline jurisdiction and the O.A. is liable to be dismissed. The interim order is vacated.
38. However, we are sure that such a transfer when he has only nearly 3½ years left for retirement will cause him considerable inconveniences. In this connection, we notice the following observations in Annexure-R2(q) where it is stated that:
"However, once, he has reported to his new place of posting, the competent authority will give due consideration to his transfer back to ICAR-CTCRI, Thiruvananthapuram subject to alternate arrangements at Regional Station, Bhubaneswar."
We are sure that this observation shall be given due weight by the Deepa S 2026.01.01 14:10:22+05'30' O.A.No.320/2025 18 respondents at the appropriate time.
With this observation, we dismiss the Original Application. No costs.
(Dated, this the 1st day of January, 2026)
V.RAMA MATHEW JUSTICE K.HARIPAL
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
ds
Deepa S 2026.01.01 14:10:22+05'30'
O.A.No.320/2025 19
List of Annexures
Annexure A-1 True copy of the initial appointment order vide F No.35/94-Per dated 23.3.2002 issued by the 2nd respondent Director with typed Copy Annexure A-2 True copy of promotion order vide F.No. 19/2005-Per dated 8.8.2008 issued by the 2nd respondent Director, with typed Copy. Annexure A-3 True copy of the "Merit promotion" given as per office order vide F.No. 16-4/2011-Tech dated 20.3.2012 issued by the 3rd respondent Administrative Officer to T-3 Grade with typed copy Annexure A-4 True copy of the office order vide F.No. 16-1/2016 Estt dated 5- 8-2017 issued by the Senior Administrative Officer 3rd respondent Annexure A-5 True copy of the office order vide F.No. 16-1/2016-Estt dated 24.01.2023 promoting to T-4 to T-5 issued by the Assistant Administrative Officer (Estt) Annexure A-6 True copy of the order dated 9.12.2024 passed by the Honourable Judicial first Class Magistrate Court-I Nedumangad in M.C.No. 41/2023 with typed copy and translation Annexure A-7 True copy of the Medical Certificate dated 4.7.2025 issued by Dr. Arun Pareeth, Urologist PRS Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram. Annexure A-8 True copy of the Transfer order vide F.No.1-8/2023 Admn dated 25.6.25 issued by the 3rd respondent with your Cory Annexure A-9 True copy of the Representation dated 30.6.2025 of the applicant submitted to the 2nd respondent Director Annexure A-10 True copy of the Guidelines for Intra Institutional Transfer vide F.No. TS-19/(II)2016-Estt-IV dated 6.9.2016 issued by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi.
Annexure-A-11 True copy of Medical Certificate dated 26.07.2025 issued by Dr. Manu S. Sreegokulam Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram Deepa S 2026.01.01 14:10:22+05'30' O.A.No.320/2025 20 Annexure-A-12 True copy of representation of the applicant dated 31.07.2025 Annexure-A-13 True copy of M/s. Hind Lab Report dated 26.07.2025 Annexure-A-14 True copy of MR Imaging of Lumber Spine dated 22.04.2024 issued by Dr. P. Malini, Consultant Radiologist.
Annexure-A-15 True copy of Lab Test Report of PRS Hospital Thiruvananthapuram dtd. 4.7.2025 Annexure-A-16 True copy of MR Imaging of right shoulder dated 22.4.2024 issued by Dr. P. Malini, Consultant Radiologist Annexure-A-17- True copy of Medical Report of M/s. Hind Lab dated 7.12.2024 issued by Dr. Swapna M. Lenin John, Consultant Radiologist Annexure-A-18 True copy of Medical certificate dated 4.7.2025 issued by Dr. Remya, Asst. Professor, Govt. Ayurveda College Thiruvananthapuram. Annexure-R2(a). True copy of the relevant pages of proceedings and project miles stones 2025-2026 of 51st Annual Institute Research Institute council meeting Annexure-R2(b).True copy of the communication issued by the National Bank for Agricultural and Rural Development Department dt. 27/03/2025 to the Head Regional Centre of ICAR-CTCRI, Odisha Annexure-R2(c). True copy of the relevant pages regarding Special Projects included in the 51st Annual IRC meeting dt. 5-9-25.
Annexure R2(d): True copy of the memorandum containing the terms and conditions dt 11/3/2002 issued by the 2nd respondent to the applicant. Annexure R2(e). True copy of the communication dt. 20/03/2002 issued by the applicant to the 2nd respondent informing the acceptance of the terms and conditions Annexure R2(f). True copy of the relevant pages of Establishment and Deepa S 2026.01.01 14:10:22+05'30' O.A.No.320/2025 21 Administrative Mannual of ICAR AnnexureR2(g). True copy of the relevant pages of the Hand book on Delegation of Powers in ICAR Annexure.R2(h). True copy of the relevant pages of Schedule II of Handbook on Delegations of Powers in ICAR Annexure.R2(i).True copy of the Office Memorandum dt. 8/12/2017 issued by the Under Secretary to Govt. of India.
Annexure.R2(j).True copy of office order No. F 28/87 Per dt. 13/07/2023 issued by the 3rd respondent.
Annexure. R2(k). True copy of the transfer order No. F No.7-1/2024 -Admn. dt. 30/04/2024 issued by the 3rd respondent.
Annexure. R2(l).True copy of the details of usage of ICAR-CTCRI (HQ) Vehicles from 1/04/2023 to 21/07/2025 issued by Controlling Officer (Vehicle), CTCRI, Thiruvananthapuram.
Annexure.R2(m). True copy of the office order dt. 17/01/2025 issued by 3rd respondent.
Annexure.R2(n).True copy of the relevant pages of Schedule VI of Handbook on Powers in ICAR stating the powers delegated to the Head of office Annexure.R2(o). True copy of the Memorandum No. F No. 3/2002 Per dt. 1/08/2025.
Annexure.R2(p). True copy of the representation dt. 31/07/2025 filed by the applicant before the 2nd respondent along with medical documents Annexure.R2(q). True copy of the order F.No. 3/2002 Per dt. 7/8/2025 issued by the 3rd respondent.
Annexure.R2(r). Original office order issued by the Director, CTCRI, Thiruvananthapuram on 25/06/2025.
Deepa S 2026.01.01 14:10:22+05'30' O.A.No.320/2025 22 Annexure.R2(s). True copy of the office order transferring officials, issued by Hon'ble Chairman and signed by Deputy Registrar (E)of CAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi dt. 26/08/2025 ************* Deepa S 2026.01.01 14:10:22+05'30'