Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai
Ganesan Mani vs Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (Barc) on 12 September, 2025
1 OA Nos. 6 & 57 of 2025
Central Administrative Tribunal
Mumbai Bench: Mumbai
OA Nos. 6/2025 & 57/2025
This the 12th day of September, 2025
Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.G. Sewlikar, Member (J)
OA No. 06/2025
Mr. Ganesan Mani, aged 38 years,
Security Guard, Emp. No. 30252,
In the Office of the Security Section,
BARC, Trombay, Mumbai.
Address - A-05, Ghatkopar_A,
Singhani Estate, LBS Marg,
Ghatkopar (West), Mumbai- 400086.
-Applicant
(By Advocate Mr. R.L. Kulkarni)
Versus
1. The Union of India,
through the Secretary,
The Department of Atomic Energy,
Anushakti Bhavan, C.S.M. Marg,
Mumbai-400001.
2. The Controller, BARC,
Central Complex, Trombay,
Mumbai. 400085
Email: [email protected]
3. The Deputy Establishment Officer,
Personnel Division, Recruitment Section-II,
B.A.R.C, Trombay, Mumbai 400085.
- Respondents
(By Advocate Mr. N.K. Rajpurohit)
Digitally signed by Nicky Kumari
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=
5701472963214eacaf7214eb1c705990, Phone=
319c15ca9eb1feefdf068e6ccd39ee2956895f6f91a3b405297e23829af5a475
Nicky Kumari , PostalCode=823002, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER=
78a0e5fc01b6b3d12eabec40e7f8c4bf366c1f4f6f5bd93fc66bbdd397444faa,
CN=Nicky Kumari
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2025.10.08 15:35:00+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
2 OA Nos. 6 & 57 of 2025
OA No. 57/2025
Mr. Sudhakar Jaysing Vaydande
Aged 55 years, Sr. Security Guard,
Emp. No. 3746, In the office of the
Security Section, BARC, Trombay, Mumbai.
Address- D18, Brahmputra, Western
Sector, BARC Colony, Anushaktinagar,
Mumbai- 400094
-Applicant
(By Advocate Mr. R.L. Kulkarni)
Versus
1. The Union of India
Through the Secretary,
The Department of Atomic Energy,
Anushakti Bhavan, C.S.M. Marg,
Mumbai- 400001.
Email: [email protected]
2. The Controller, BARC,
Central Complex, Trombay,
Mumbai. 400085
Email: [email protected]
3. The Deputy Establishment Officer,
Personnel Division, Recruitment Section-II,
B.A.R.C, Trombay, Mumbai 400085.
-Respondents
(By Advocate Ms. Sharanya Sinha)
ORAL ORDER
Per: Justice M.G. Sewlikar, Member (J)
Both these applications are being disposed of by common order as issue involved in both these applications is common.
Digitally signed by Nicky KumariDN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= 5701472963214eacaf7214eb1c705990, Phone= 319c15ca9eb1feefdf068e6ccd39ee2956895f6f91a3b405297e23829af5a475 Nicky Kumari , PostalCode=823002, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 78a0e5fc01b6b3d12eabec40e7f8c4bf366c1f4f6f5bd93fc66bbdd397444faa, CN=Nicky Kumari Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.10.08 15:35:00+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 3 OA Nos. 6 & 57 of 2025
2. In both these applications, the applicants are challenging their Order of Transfer dated 26th December, 2024.
3. Facts in OA No. 6/2025 are as under:-
3.1. The applicant joined Directorate of Construction services and Estate Management as security guard on 16th November, 2017 which is under Department of Atomic Energy.
3.2. It is the case of the applicant that there are five zones under Anushakti Nagar security and approximately 200 security staffs are working under Anushakti Security section.
3.3. It is alleged that the applicant is a South Indian and he is not conversant with Marathi and Hindi, as a result of which he is being targeted by some of the security officers and memorandum has been issued to him with intention to harass him. Applicant was transferred on 04th May, 2023 from Anushakti Security Section, BARC to CSO, BARC (Annexure- A-3). Applicant had filed OA No. 400/2023 to Digitally signed by Nicky Kumari DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= 5701472963214eacaf7214eb1c705990, Phone= 319c15ca9eb1feefdf068e6ccd39ee2956895f6f91a3b405297e23829af5a475 Nicky Kumari , PostalCode=823002, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 78a0e5fc01b6b3d12eabec40e7f8c4bf366c1f4f6f5bd93fc66bbdd397444faa, CN=Nicky Kumari Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.10.08 15:35:00+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 4 OA Nos. 6 & 57 of 2025 challenge this transfer order which was subsequently withdrawn on 19th June, 2023.
3.4. On 26th December, 2023, applicant was called by Security Officer, Mr. Vinod Kumar from investigation cell.
The applicant was informed that the investigation cell had received a complaint against him about his misbehaviour with some employees and applicant was asked to give his statement / explanation. Despite making request for providing the details of the compliant, they were not provided. Hence, applicant refused to give his explanation. Thereafter, the applicant was forced to give the explanation by ASO Shri. Mahesh Kadam and ASO Shri. Ashok Lad by physically blocking applicant's way. Next day, applicant made a written complaint to the Controller, BARC i.e. respondent no. 2 but no action was taken on it. 3.5. It is further averred that on 11th November, 2024, applicant had sent an application through proper channel for correction of anomaly in his APAR evaluation for the period 2021-22 and 2022-23 to the Deputy Establishment Officer, Vigilance Section, BARC, Mumbai. It is further Digitally signed by Nicky Kumari DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= 5701472963214eacaf7214eb1c705990, Phone= 319c15ca9eb1feefdf068e6ccd39ee2956895f6f91a3b405297e23829af5a475 Nicky Kumari , PostalCode=823002, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 78a0e5fc01b6b3d12eabec40e7f8c4bf366c1f4f6f5bd93fc66bbdd397444faa, CN=Nicky Kumari Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.10.08 15:35:00+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 5 OA Nos. 6 & 57 of 2025 averred that father of the applicant is 66 years old and mother is 63 years old. Both of them need personal care due to old age and ill health. His father is suffering from ulcer and heart ailment. Applicant had sent an application dated 29th February, 2024 for mutual transfer in place of Security Guard, Mr. S.J. Vaydande (applicant in OA No. 57/2025). Mr. S.J. Vaydande had also sent the application for mutual transfer. On 28th March, 2024, applicant received communication from the Assistant Personnel Officer, BARC, Security Section informing the applicant that the case of the applicant was examined by the competent authority and will be considered for transfer in due course. All of a sudden, on 26th December, 2024, the applicant came to be transferred to BARC security to BARCF, Vizag (Vishakhapatnam) which is about 1330 kms from Mumbai. The applicant had made representation against his transfer. This order is impugned in this OA. 3.6. Applicant contends that the impugned transfer is a mid-term & mid-tenure transfer without following the Office Memorandum dated 21st March, 2024 issued by the Additional Secretary, DAE, Government of India on revised Digitally signed by Nicky Kumari DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= 5701472963214eacaf7214eb1c705990, Phone= 319c15ca9eb1feefdf068e6ccd39ee2956895f6f91a3b405297e23829af5a475 Nicky Kumari , PostalCode=823002, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 78a0e5fc01b6b3d12eabec40e7f8c4bf366c1f4f6f5bd93fc66bbdd397444faa, CN=Nicky Kumari Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.10.08 15:35:00+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 6 OA Nos. 6 & 57 of 2025 transfer policy. The applicant was previously transferred from Anushakti Nagar security to BARC by the transfer order dated 04th May, 2023. As per point no. 5.7 of the Transfer Policy, all Group 'B' (non-gazetted) and Group 'C' posts are unit based and may not be transferred from one unit to another since each unit is maintaining its separate seniority list. However, officers shall have a tenure of 5 years in a particular section in the concerned unit and they should be transferred to some other section in the same unit by the concerned unit. The applicant has completed only 18 months on the present posting and was not due for transfer. The order does not mention that the transfer was in public interest. The respondents transferred the applicant without considering his application for mutual transfer with applicant in OA No. 57/2025, Mr. S.J. Vaydande. He has, therefore, filed this OA.
4. Respondents filed their reply. They contend that BARC is a premier Multi-disciplinary Research and Development Organization (MR&DO) having its units at Mysuru, Kalpakkam and Vishakhapatnam under the Department of Atomic Energy, Government of India. Digitally signed by Nicky Kumari DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= 5701472963214eacaf7214eb1c705990, Phone= 319c15ca9eb1feefdf068e6ccd39ee2956895f6f91a3b405297e23829af5a475 Nicky Kumari , PostalCode=823002, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 78a0e5fc01b6b3d12eabec40e7f8c4bf366c1f4f6f5bd93fc66bbdd397444faa, CN=Nicky Kumari Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.10.08 15:35:00+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 7 OA Nos. 6 & 57 of 2025 4.1. They contend in their reply that applicant was issued offer of appointment on 11th October, 2017 in which it was specifically mentioned that the appointment carries with it the liability to serve in any part of India or in any of the Constituent Units of the Department of Atomic Energy. 4.2. They further contend that clause 5.7 of the Transfer Policy does not guarantee maximum period of service required before an official is transferred. Exigencies or functional requirements will be considered in transfer cases. DAE and its Constituent Units are all places of national importance. In such scenario, security personnel play a vital role in safeguarding of such Units. They further contend that the applicant was called upon to record a statement regarding a compliant received against him for his misbehaviour with a BARC official. They contend that the applicant was not forced to give statement. On these grounds, they prayed for dismissal of the application. 4.3. The respondents have filed a Seniority list of Security Guards working in BARC (Trombay), GSO (Tarapur), RMP (Mysore) and BARCF (Vizag). It is their case that Vizag unit Digitally signed by Nicky Kumari DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= 5701472963214eacaf7214eb1c705990, Phone= 319c15ca9eb1feefdf068e6ccd39ee2956895f6f91a3b405297e23829af5a475 Nicky Kumari , PostalCode=823002, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 78a0e5fc01b6b3d12eabec40e7f8c4bf366c1f4f6f5bd93fc66bbdd397444faa, CN=Nicky Kumari Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.10.08 15:35:00+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 8 OA Nos. 6 & 57 of 2025 i.e. Vishakhapatnam is within Mumbai unit and, therefore, his transfer is within the same unit.
5. Applicant filed rejoinder. He contends that the respondents themselves have alleged in their reply that BARC has units at Mysuru, Kalpakkam and Vishakhapatnam under the Department of Atomic Energy. Therefore, there is no dispute that Vishakhapatnam (Vizag) is a separate unit and transfer from one unit to another unit is prohibited as per clause 5.5 of the Revised Transfer Policy. He contends that he has not been specially trained to impart training to junior security officers nor the respondents have placed any such record to support their contentions. He contends that only he and Mr. S.J. Vaydande have been transferred to such remote place just because both of them have filed the applications for mutual transfer. The respondents have retained the security guards who are working in the same section of BARC security for more than 5 years and have not been transferred out of the section. He gives names of security guards, Mr. Thakur Laxman Dashrath, Mr. Jawalkar Nilesh Ramji, Mr. Rawool Rajesh Gangaram, Mr. Sachin Digitally signed by Nicky Kumari DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= 5701472963214eacaf7214eb1c705990, Phone= 319c15ca9eb1feefdf068e6ccd39ee2956895f6f91a3b405297e23829af5a475 Nicky Kumari , PostalCode=823002, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 78a0e5fc01b6b3d12eabec40e7f8c4bf366c1f4f6f5bd93fc66bbdd397444faa, CN=Nicky Kumari Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.10.08 15:35:00+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 9 OA Nos. 6 & 57 of 2025 Kumar and Mr. Mali Gopal Rajendra. There are also senior security guards who are not transferred from their section for more than last 10 years namely Mr. Mane Bhanudas Shrirang, Mr. Sakpal Prakash Pandurang and Mr. Antony Das. He contends that the applicant has been singled out.
6. Respondents filed reply to rejoinder. In the reply to rejoinder, they contend that the department has issued a clarification dated 17th April, 2025 that the 'Unit' mentioned in para 5.7 of the OA dated 21st March, 2024 means any Constituent Unit under Department of Atomic Energy. A Constituent Unit under Department of Atomic Energy may have its Head Quarters at a particular station with its various Field Offices / Establishments / Projects all over India. The Head Quarters shall have to maintain a designation wise common seniority list of all the official in Group B (non-gazetted) (except Assistant & Assistant Account in Level 7 under DQE) and Group C posts of the Unit. They contend that the department in order to harness the experience and to make good use of the same has transferred the applicant so that the newly recruited security guards have a systematic approach to gain Digitally signed by Nicky Kumari DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= 5701472963214eacaf7214eb1c705990, Phone= 319c15ca9eb1feefdf068e6ccd39ee2956895f6f91a3b405297e23829af5a475 Nicky Kumari , PostalCode=823002, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 78a0e5fc01b6b3d12eabec40e7f8c4bf366c1f4f6f5bd93fc66bbdd397444faa, CN=Nicky Kumari Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.10.08 15:35:00+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 10 OA Nos. 6 & 57 of 2025 practical knowledge while working with experienced security guards and imbibing themselves to the DAE Security culture. There is no training institute for the security guards. They can train the newly recruited security guards on the basis of their experience gained during their service. They, therefore, prayed for the dismissal of the application.
7. Facts in OA No. 57/2025 are that the applicant has joined Shri Project, DAE, Vadodra as security guard on 14 th January, 1991 under Department of Atomic Energy. 7.1. It is the case of the applicant that he is suffering from heart ailment and some skin disease and has undergone Angioplasty in the Hiranandani Hospital, Vashi, Navi Mumbai on 10th October, 2024. Applicant has two sons and one daughter aged 25 years and he is looking for a groom for his daughter.
7.2. It is further alleged that the applicant came to know that he may get transferred to somewhere else, as a result of which on 25th February, 2024, applicant sent an application for mutual transfer in place of security guard Digitally signed by Nicky Kumari DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= 5701472963214eacaf7214eb1c705990, Phone= 319c15ca9eb1feefdf068e6ccd39ee2956895f6f91a3b405297e23829af5a475 Nicky Kumari , PostalCode=823002, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 78a0e5fc01b6b3d12eabec40e7f8c4bf366c1f4f6f5bd93fc66bbdd397444faa, CN=Nicky Kumari Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.10.08 15:35:00+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 11 OA Nos. 6 & 57 of 2025 guard Mr. Ganesan Mani (applicant in OA No. 6/2025). Mr. Ganesan Mani had also made application for mutual transfer.
7.3. It is further averred that by order dated 26th December, 2024, the applicant came to be transferred from Anushakti Nagar Security, Mumbai to RMP Mysore which is about 1068 kms from Mumbai. Applicant made representation for cancellation of his transfer in which he stated that he is on the verge of retirement and has family obligation of marrying his daughter. The applicant was relieved on 27th December, 2024 for reporting to RMP, Mysore. Applicant's transfer is a mid-term transfer without following the Office Memorandum dated 21st March, 2024 on revised transfer policy for DAE employees other than Scientific and Technical Personnel. He has, therefore, prayed for setting aside the order of transfer.
8. The respondents have made similar allegations as have been made in OA No. 6/2025.
9. In the rejoinder, he has stated that he has completed 55 years and 6 months at the time when impugned order Digitally signed by Nicky Kumari DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= 5701472963214eacaf7214eb1c705990, Phone= 319c15ca9eb1feefdf068e6ccd39ee2956895f6f91a3b405297e23829af5a475 Nicky Kumari , PostalCode=823002, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 78a0e5fc01b6b3d12eabec40e7f8c4bf366c1f4f6f5bd93fc66bbdd397444faa, CN=Nicky Kumari Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.10.08 15:35:00+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 12 OA Nos. 6 & 57 of 2025 was passed. Applicant's case should have been considered as per Para 6.4 of the revised transfer policy by the Memorandum dated 21st March, 2024. Rest of the allegations are the replica of the rejoinder filed in OA No. 6/2025.
10. Respondents filed reply to rejoinder in which they repeated same allegations.
11. We have heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the respondents in both the OAs.
12. Learned counsel for the applicant in both the OAs submitted that the applicant is working in Mumbai unit and now, he is transferred to Vishakhapatnam unit. Both the units are different and the respondents have admitted this fact in their reply. In terms of revised transfer policy, the applicants can be transferred in different sections within the same unit. Since Vishakhapatnam is a different unit, he cannot be transferred to a different unit. He further submitted that the applicant was transferred from Anushakti Nagar, Security to CSO, Security, BARC by the order dated 04th May, 2023. In terms of revised transfer Digitally signed by Nicky Kumari DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= 5701472963214eacaf7214eb1c705990, Phone= 319c15ca9eb1feefdf068e6ccd39ee2956895f6f91a3b405297e23829af5a475 Nicky Kumari , PostalCode=823002, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 78a0e5fc01b6b3d12eabec40e7f8c4bf366c1f4f6f5bd93fc66bbdd397444faa, CN=Nicky Kumari Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.10.08 15:35:00+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 13 OA Nos. 6 & 57 of 2025 policy, clause 5.5, the applicant cannot be transferred till he completes residency period of five years. He submits that this clause of the policy has been violated by the respondents.
12.1. He further submitted that the applicants have produced the information obtained under RTI to show that Vishakhapatnam is a different unit. He submitted that by transfer order, other security guards have been adjusted in Mumbai but both the applicants have been transferred to far off places. One Devendra Dahiya and D.M. Patre, both security guards had made application for mutual transfer and that was accepted but the applications of the applicants were not considered while passing the impugned order of transfer. He contended that applicant in OA no.
6/2025 had preferred representation challenging the APAR and raised his voice against recording of his statement forcefully. To silence him, and to suppress his voice, the applicant has been transferred by the impugned transfer order. The respondents contend that both the applicants came to be transferred to impart training to the newly recruited security guards. However, the applicants are not Digitally signed by Nicky Kumari DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= 5701472963214eacaf7214eb1c705990, Phone= 319c15ca9eb1feefdf068e6ccd39ee2956895f6f91a3b405297e23829af5a475 Nicky Kumari , PostalCode=823002, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 78a0e5fc01b6b3d12eabec40e7f8c4bf366c1f4f6f5bd93fc66bbdd397444faa, CN=Nicky Kumari Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.10.08 15:35:00+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 14 OA Nos. 6 & 57 of 2025 specially trained for imparting training. In these circumstances, the public interest allegedly shown to be in reply is nothing but a camouflage. His transfer is a punitive transfer and, therefore, transfer of the applicant is hit by bias.
12.2. He further submitted that there are number of security guards who are senior to the applicant and are working in the same station for more than five years and 10 years but they have not been transferred and the applicants have been singled out. He submitted that on the vacant post of the applicants on account of their transfer, no security guard is posted. It is not the case of the respondents that applicants were serving there as an excess. Both the applicants are drawing salary of Rs.
35,000/- and odd in which it will be very difficult for them to maintain two establishments. When guidelines have been violated, interference at the hands of the Tribunal becomes necessary. He has placed reliance on the following judgments:-
Digitally signed by Nicky Kumari
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= 5701472963214eacaf7214eb1c705990, Phone= 319c15ca9eb1feefdf068e6ccd39ee2956895f6f91a3b405297e23829af5a475 Nicky Kumari , PostalCode=823002, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 78a0e5fc01b6b3d12eabec40e7f8c4bf366c1f4f6f5bd93fc66bbdd397444faa, CN=Nicky Kumari Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.10.08 15:35:00+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 15 OA Nos. 6 & 57 of 2025
(i) Sameer Dnyandev Wankhede versus Union of India & another, in OA No. 3677/2024 dated 20th February, 2025 (CAT, Principal Bench).
(ii) Dipika Kantilal Shukla versus State of Gujarat and Ors. in Special Civil Application Nos. 10232 and 10234 of 1996 dated 28th February, 2006 (Gujarat High Court).
(iii) Somesh Tiwari versus Union of India and others in Civil Appeal No. 7308 of 2008 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 3516 of 2007) dated 16.12.2008 (Supreme Court).
(iv) Susmriti Das and Ors. vs Basumati Corpn. Ltd.
decided on 06th January, 1993, (1994) ILLN 485.
13. Learned counsel for the respondents in OA No. 6/2025 submitted that there are several units of Department of Atomic Energy (DAE). Mumbai unit cover Vishakhapatnam because their common seniority list is published. Therefore, Vishakhapatnam is not a different unit but it is a section of the same unit i.e. Mumbai. He submitted that the information obtained under RTI was with respect to CPIO. In that context, it is shown to be a separate unit. Since common seniority list is maintained by the respondents, it is not a separate unit but a section in Digitally signed by Nicky Kumari DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= 5701472963214eacaf7214eb1c705990, Phone= 319c15ca9eb1feefdf068e6ccd39ee2956895f6f91a3b405297e23829af5a475 Nicky Kumari , PostalCode=823002, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 78a0e5fc01b6b3d12eabec40e7f8c4bf366c1f4f6f5bd93fc66bbdd397444faa, CN=Nicky Kumari Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.10.08 15:35:00+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 16 OA Nos. 6 & 57 of 2025 the same unit. He further submitted that the respondents transferred both the applicants in public interest. The respondents have also explained what is the public interest. Once transfer is in public interest, Tribunal cannot interfere in its power of judicial review. He further submitted that the term of five years as mentioned in the clause 5.5 is not a maximum period for which one can be posted at a particular station. A security guard can be transferred, even if he has not completed five years, if it is in public interest. He submitted that the ailment of the applicant in OA No. 57/2025 is not such as it cannot be treated at a place like Mysore. He, therefore, submitted that both the OAs deserve to be dismissed with cost. He placed reliance on following judgments:-
(i) Shri Dattatray Krishnaji Pawar versus Union of India & Ors. in Writ Petition No. 2706 of 2019 with interim application no. 1622 of 2022 (Bombay High Court).
(ii) Shri Sudhakar L. Auchite versus Union of India & Ors. in OA 285/2020 dated 16th November, 2021 (CAT, Mumbai Bench).Digitally signed by Nicky Kumari
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= 5701472963214eacaf7214eb1c705990, Phone= 319c15ca9eb1feefdf068e6ccd39ee2956895f6f91a3b405297e23829af5a475 Nicky Kumari , PostalCode=823002, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 78a0e5fc01b6b3d12eabec40e7f8c4bf366c1f4f6f5bd93fc66bbdd397444faa, CN=Nicky Kumari Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.10.08 15:35:00+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 17 OA Nos. 6 & 57 of 2025
(iii) Shri Rajendra Shankar Kalal versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. in Writ Petition No. 8898 of 2010 (Bombay High Court).
(iv) K.V. Madhusudanrao versus Union of India & anr.
in OA No. 314/2023 dated 01st day of April, 2024 (CAT, Mumbai Bench).
14. Learned counsel Ms. Sharanya Sinha submitted that the applicant is not suffering from any such disease which can be treated only in Mumbai. He has heart ailment which can be treated at any place including place like Mysore. She submitted that for performing the marriage of daughter, the applicant need not be posted at the same place.
15. I have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsels for the respective parties. All the learned counsels took me through the pleadings and the documents annexed with the OA.
16. Before embarking upon the inquiry as regards violation of revised transfer policy by the Office Digitally signed by Nicky Kumari DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= 5701472963214eacaf7214eb1c705990, Phone= 319c15ca9eb1feefdf068e6ccd39ee2956895f6f91a3b405297e23829af5a475 Nicky Kumari , PostalCode=823002, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 78a0e5fc01b6b3d12eabec40e7f8c4bf366c1f4f6f5bd93fc66bbdd397444faa, CN=Nicky Kumari Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.10.08 15:35:00+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 18 OA Nos. 6 & 57 of 2025 Memorandum dated 21st March, 2024, it will be apposite to consider some relevant clauses of the revised transfer policy. As per this policy, all transfers / postings in the Administrative /Accounts/Security/Official Language/Purchase & Stores cadres will be decided by the Cadre Controlling Authority. Clause 5.2 states that the Cadre Controlling Authority reserves the right to order or decide any promotion postings or transfers as may be important considering the exigencies of work which may not necessarily adhere to the guidelines laid out in this policy. Clause 5.3 states that while considering the transfer/posting, the competent authority may consider various aspects like domain knowledge, availability of alternatives, APAR in last/new assignments, inter-personal relations in office, health of official, date of superannuation, further promotion, etc.
17. Clause 5.5, 5.7 and 6.4 are relevant for deciding the issue involved in this OA. The same are reproduced here in verbatim:-
"5.5. In order to provide transparency and accountability in the functioning of the Department, employees belonging to Digitally signed by Nicky Kumari DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= 5701472963214eacaf7214eb1c705990, Phone= 319c15ca9eb1feefdf068e6ccd39ee2956895f6f91a3b405297e23829af5a475 Nicky Kumari , PostalCode=823002, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 78a0e5fc01b6b3d12eabec40e7f8c4bf366c1f4f6f5bd93fc66bbdd397444faa, CN=Nicky Kumari Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.10.08 15:35:00+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 19 OA Nos. 6 & 57 of 2025 Administration, Accounts, Purchase and Stores, Official language, Security and other similar cadres may not be allowed to continue to discharge their duties/responsibilities at the same office / same desk for more than five years, irrespective of the different designations/capacities at the same office / same desk. The transfer of such officials to a different assignment/unit is desirable from human resource development point of view as it enriches the experience and acumen of the officials through exposure to a variety of work profiles in their professional career.
5.7. All Group B (non-gazetted) and Group C posts are unit based and may not be transferred from one unit to another since each unit is maintaining separate seniority lists However, officers shall have a tenure of 5 years in a particular section in the concerned unit and they should be transferred to some other section in the same unit by the concerned unit.
6.4. Officials who are 55 years of age and above will be considered for posting at the same station against available vacancies in the case of promotion under Seniority-cum-Fitness quota."
18. Clause 5.5 (supra) states that employees belonging to Administration, Accounts, Purchase and Stores, Official language, Security and other similar cadres may not be allowed to continue to discharge their duties / responsibilities at the same office / same desk for more than five years. Clause 5.7 states that all Group B (non- gazetted) and Group C posts are unit based and may not be transferred from one unit to another since each unit is maintaining separate seniority lists. However, officers shall Digitally signed by Nicky Kumari DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= 5701472963214eacaf7214eb1c705990, Phone= 319c15ca9eb1feefdf068e6ccd39ee2956895f6f91a3b405297e23829af5a475 Nicky Kumari , PostalCode=823002, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 78a0e5fc01b6b3d12eabec40e7f8c4bf366c1f4f6f5bd93fc66bbdd397444faa, CN=Nicky Kumari Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.10.08 15:35:00+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 20 OA Nos. 6 & 57 of 2025 have a tenure of five years in a particular section in the concerned unit and they should be transferred to some other sections in the same unit by the concerned unit.
19. Applicant in OA no. 6/2025 has been transferred to Vizag (Vishakhapatnam) and applicant in OA No. 57/2025 has been transferred to Mysuru. The question is whether Mysore and Vizag are within Mumbai unit or they are separate units. It is true that in the reply, the respondents have stated that the DAE has different units at Mysuru, Kalpakkam and Vishakhapatnam. The applicants have produced information obtained under RTI to show that Mysore and Vishakhapatnam are separate units. Neither the applicant nor the respondents have furnished any information as regards number of units and number of sections under each unit especially, Mumbai under DAE has been furnished despite passing the order dated 03rd April, 2025 to that effect. They were also directed to explain as to what is the definition of unit, how many units are there in the country and how many sections are there in every unit, especially in Mumbai unit. Neither the respondents nor the applicants have furnished this Digitally signed by Nicky Kumari DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= 5701472963214eacaf7214eb1c705990, Phone= 319c15ca9eb1feefdf068e6ccd39ee2956895f6f91a3b405297e23829af5a475 Nicky Kumari , PostalCode=823002, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 78a0e5fc01b6b3d12eabec40e7f8c4bf366c1f4f6f5bd93fc66bbdd397444faa, CN=Nicky Kumari Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.10.08 15:35:00+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 21 OA Nos. 6 & 57 of 2025 information. Therefore, this issue will have to be decided on the basis of the available material.
20. It is the case of the respondents that Mysore and Vizag are not different units but they are sections in the same unit i.e. Mumbai. For this purpose, they have produced seniority list of security guards working in BARC (Trombay), GSO (Tarapur), RMP (Mysore) and BARCF (Vizag). The transfer policy also says that all Group B (non- gazetted) and Group C posts are unit based and may not be transferred from one unit to another since each unit is maintaining separate seniority lists. The applicants have not brought anything on record to show that Trombay, Mysore, Vizag are maintaining separate seniority list. Whereas, the respondents have produced common seniority list of security guards working in BARC (Trombay), GSO (Tarapur), RMP (Mysore) and BARCF (Vizag). This clearly shows that the Mysore and Vizag are not separate units but are the sections in the same unit.
21. The information which the applicants have obtained under RTI is totally for a different purpose i.e. for Digitally signed by Nicky Kumari DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= 5701472963214eacaf7214eb1c705990, Phone= 319c15ca9eb1feefdf068e6ccd39ee2956895f6f91a3b405297e23829af5a475 Nicky Kumari , PostalCode=823002, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 78a0e5fc01b6b3d12eabec40e7f8c4bf366c1f4f6f5bd93fc66bbdd397444faa, CN=Nicky Kumari Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.10.08 15:35:00+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 22 OA Nos. 6 & 57 of 2025 designating the APIOs, CPIOs under Right to Information Act. Simply because while furnishing information, it is stated that Mysore and Vizag are separate units, it cannot be accepted that they are separate units because they are not maintaining separate seniority list. If they had been maintaining separate seniority lists, Mysore and Vizag would have been called as separate units. But this is not the position. Trombay i.e. Mumbai, Tarapur, Mysore and Vizag are maintaining same seniority list and, therefore, they are not separate units but they are the sections in Mumbai unit and, therefore, transfer of the applicants to these places cannot be called in violation of the revised transfer policy.
22. So far as arguments relating to bias are concerned, I do not find any substance in it. In the case of Shri Dattatray Krishnaji Pawar (supra), concept of bias has been explained by the Bombay High Court. In para 17 and 18, Bombay High Court has held thus:-
"17. By way of reiteration, we observe that an order of transfer would amount to a punishment if by reason thereof the officer/employee has been asked to discharge duty of a post lower than that he had been holding or if his pay has been downgraded or Digitally signed by Nicky Kumari DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= 5701472963214eacaf7214eb1c705990, Phone= 319c15ca9eb1feefdf068e6ccd39ee2956895f6f91a3b405297e23829af5a475 Nicky Kumari , PostalCode=823002, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 78a0e5fc01b6b3d12eabec40e7f8c4bf366c1f4f6f5bd93fc66bbdd397444faa, CN=Nicky Kumari Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.10.08 15:35:00+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 23 OA Nos. 6 & 57 of 2025 his promotional prospects are jeopardized or if the order is stigmatic, in the sense that he would have to carry an indelible stain for the rest of his service career without there being any finding of guilt recorded against him. None of these incidents is present in the case of the petitioner's transfer. We, therefore, cannot hold his transfer as punitive.
18. It is also not a case where the petitioner despite not having suffered any civil consequence by reason of the order of transfer being allegedly punitive in nature, or despite the transfer order being innocuously worded but founded on reported indiscipline, we can and must, by lifting the veil, ascertain whether any mala fide motive has triggered the same and/or the petitioner has been dealt with in any manner violative of his rights in the matter of public employment. It is not in dispute that the petitioner's service was transferable. Over and above that, the petitioner being governed by FR 15, he could be transferred on account of misbehaviour. As has been held in Janardhan Debanath (supra), in a case where transfer is on account of inefficiency or misbehaviour, the same can be made to a post carrying less pay than the pay of the post on which the officer/employee holds a lien. The petitioner not having been transferred to hold a post carrying lesser pay, we see no reason to hold that in the given facts the petitioner suffered the order of transfer as and by way of punishment."
23. From the above pronouncement of the Bombay High Court, it is clear that a transfer would be called punitive only if the employee is transferred to a post drawing lesser pay or he has been asked to discharge duty of a post lower than that he had been holding, his pay has been downgraded or his promotional prospects are jeopardized Digitally signed by Nicky Kumari DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= 5701472963214eacaf7214eb1c705990, Phone= 319c15ca9eb1feefdf068e6ccd39ee2956895f6f91a3b405297e23829af5a475 Nicky Kumari , PostalCode=823002, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 78a0e5fc01b6b3d12eabec40e7f8c4bf366c1f4f6f5bd93fc66bbdd397444faa, CN=Nicky Kumari Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.10.08 15:35:00+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 24 OA Nos. 6 & 57 of 2025 or if the order is stigmatic. None of these factors exist in the case of both the applicants. It is not their case that they have been asked to perform the duties of a lower post, they have been transferred to a post drawing lesser pay, or the order is stigmatic. The applicant has alleged that he was forced to give statement and he has preferred representation against adverse remarks. And that has triggerred his transfer. I do not find any substance in this contention. It is true that the applicant has complained in writing against this incident of alleged misbehaviour. I do not find any substance in this contention. When he has made allegations against the security guard, he should have made them as parties. In these circumstances, the transfer order cannot be called by way of punishment or punitive or it is out of bias.
24. Respondents' contention is that the applicants have been transferred out of public interest. The respondents have set out in their reply that various newly recruited civilians have been posted at various stations and to impart training to them, the respondents have posted the applicants at these places. When they have set out the Digitally signed by Nicky Kumari DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= 5701472963214eacaf7214eb1c705990, Phone= 319c15ca9eb1feefdf068e6ccd39ee2956895f6f91a3b405297e23829af5a475 Nicky Kumari , PostalCode=823002, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 78a0e5fc01b6b3d12eabec40e7f8c4bf366c1f4f6f5bd93fc66bbdd397444faa, CN=Nicky Kumari Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.10.08 15:35:00+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 25 OA Nos. 6 & 57 of 2025 public interest, it cannot be interfered with, in power of judicial review. Applicants have also not disputed this fact. If the transfer is in public interest, Tribunal cannot interfere in it in judicial review.
25. The applicant in OA No. 57/2025 contends that he is suffering from CAG heart ailment. He has annexed the certificate which indicates that he has undergone angiography. It is not such an ailment which cannot be treated at a place like Mysore. This certificate shows that he was admitted on 10th October, 2024 and discharged on 11th October, 2024. This certificate also does not show that he is not advised to travel. Another reason assigned by him is that his daughter's marriage is yet to be performed and, therefore, he has to be in Mumbai. This cannot be an exceptional reason for which his transfer can be stalled.
26. The applicant has also placed reliance on the case of Susmriti Das And Ors. vs Basumati Corpn. Ltd. decided on 06th January, 1993, (1994) ILLN 485. The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court has held thus: Digitally signed by Nicky Kumari
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= 5701472963214eacaf7214eb1c705990, Phone= 319c15ca9eb1feefdf068e6ccd39ee2956895f6f91a3b405297e23829af5a475 Nicky Kumari , PostalCode=823002, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 78a0e5fc01b6b3d12eabec40e7f8c4bf366c1f4f6f5bd93fc66bbdd397444faa, CN=Nicky Kumari Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.10.08 15:35:00+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 26 OA Nos. 6 & 57 of 2025 "......we cannot persuade ourselves to agree with the submission of the respondent that only steps have been taken to open new department at Silguri, even though the management remains the same and it is same establishment that covers both the units, one at Calcutta and other at Silguri. The Ld. Trial Judge has observed in his interpretation of the definition of the department that it is so comprehensive as to include both the Calcutta as well as Siliguri units to be a part and parcel of the one and the same comprehensive whole. The opening of the unit at Silguri does not mean the opening of the new department at Silguri but also opening of another separate establishment at Silguri and that being so, Para 7 of the Standing Order does not permit the nature of the transfer impugned. It cannot be held in such circumstances that the service condition are quite sufficient for the management to pass the impugned order of transfer asking the writ petitioner to join at Silguri. We, therefore, set aside the order of the Ld. Trial Judge impugned, quash the order of transfer under challenge and direct the respondent authorities to proceed in accordance with law". In this case the Writ Petitioner who was journalist was transferred from Calcutta to Silguri Unit and the defense of the respondent was that, both are belonging to same department. The dictionary definition of unit is "a single thing which is complete in itself, although it can be part of something larger".
27. This judgment of Calcutta High Court has no application to the facts of the case at hand. In the case at hand, a common seniority list is maintained for Mysore, Vizag and Mumbai. In the case of Susmriti Das And Ors. (supra), a new unit was to be opened and that was held to be another separate establishment. In the case at hand, this is not the fact situation. As indicated earlier, the seniority list of all the three places is a common seniority Digitally signed by Nicky Kumari DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= 5701472963214eacaf7214eb1c705990, Phone= 319c15ca9eb1feefdf068e6ccd39ee2956895f6f91a3b405297e23829af5a475 Nicky Kumari , PostalCode=823002, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 78a0e5fc01b6b3d12eabec40e7f8c4bf366c1f4f6f5bd93fc66bbdd397444faa, CN=Nicky Kumari Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.10.08 15:35:00+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 27 OA Nos. 6 & 57 of 2025 list and, therefore, this authority cannot be of any help to the applicants.
28. In the case of Sameer Dnyandev Wankhede (supra), it has been held that if transfer is ordered in deviation of policy, weighty reasons are required to be recorded for such deviation. In the case at hand, the respondents have assigned the reasons. Therefore, this case has no application to the case at hand. As indicated earlier, clause 5.2 of the revised policy, permits the Cadre Controlling Authority to effect mid-term transfer. In the case of Dipika Kantilal Shukla (supra), it is held that an employer has the right to transfer its employees in the interest of the administration and in public interest, since transfer is an incidence of service. However, when the employer itself has framed certain guidelines for certain categories of employees, with a clear intention, then the action of the concerned authorities should have a reasonable nexus with the objectives sought to be achieved. It is expected that the respondents will act within the guidelines framed by them, otherwise, it will remain nothing more than an empty formality on paper. This authority also does not apply for Digitally signed by Nicky Kumari DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= 5701472963214eacaf7214eb1c705990, Phone= 319c15ca9eb1feefdf068e6ccd39ee2956895f6f91a3b405297e23829af5a475 Nicky Kumari , PostalCode=823002, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 78a0e5fc01b6b3d12eabec40e7f8c4bf366c1f4f6f5bd93fc66bbdd397444faa, CN=Nicky Kumari Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.10.08 15:35:00+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 28 OA Nos. 6 & 57 of 2025 the reason that the respondents have assigned reasons for the transfer of the applicants.
29. In the case of Somesh Tiwari (supra), it is held that transfer order can be interfered with, if the same is passed malafide or because of malice in law. In the case at hand, the applicants could not make out any case about malice in fact or malice in law.
30. In these circumstances, narrated above, I do not find that the transfer is mala fide or is in violation of transfer policy. Hence, both the applications stand dismissed with no order as to costs.
31. Pending MAs, if any, stand closed.
(Justice M.G.Sewlikar) Member (J) 'nk' Digitally signed by Nicky Kumari DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65= 5701472963214eacaf7214eb1c705990, Phone= 319c15ca9eb1feefdf068e6ccd39ee2956895f6f91a3b405297e23829af5a475 Nicky Kumari , PostalCode=823002, S=Bihar, SERIALNUMBER= 78a0e5fc01b6b3d12eabec40e7f8c4bf366c1f4f6f5bd93fc66bbdd397444faa, CN=Nicky Kumari Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.10.08 15:35:00+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0