Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Pardeep Kumar vs Defence on 11 March, 2026
1
OA No.2400/2023
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
OA No.2400/2023
Orders Reserved on: 17.02.2026
Pronounced on: 11.03.2026
Hon'ble Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A)
1. Pardeep Kumar,
Age 30 years,
S/o Sh. Ramawtar Yadav,
R/o V.P.O. Padmara Khurd,
Tehsil Mundwar, Distt. Alwar,
Rajasthan-301427.
2. Yashpal, age 30 years,
S/o Sh. Hari Singh,
R/o Vill. Shimli, PO Akbarpur,
T. Narnal, Distt. Mahendergarh,
Haryana-123023.
3. Sumit, age 27 years,
S/o Sh. Laxman Rathee,
R/o VPO Jindran Kalan,
Tehsil Kalanaur, Distt. Rohtak,
Haryana-124113.
4. Sandeep Dhankhar,
Age 30 years,
S/o Sh. Ram Kishan,
R/o Vill Kasni, Post Kasni,
Distt. Jhajjar, Haryana-124109.
-Applicants
(By Advocate Shri Sachin Chauhan)
Versus
1. Union of India, through its Secretary,
Ministry of Defence, South Block,
New Delhi-110011.
2. The Directorate General of Ord. Services (OS-8C)
Integrated HQs of MoD (Army)
Sunita 2026.03.13
13:18:54
Dutt +05'30'
2
OA No.2400/2023
through Director General.
B wing, Sena Bhawan,
New Delhi-110011.
3. The Dte. General of Ord. Services (OS-20),
Master Gen. of Ord. Branch, through
Director General, D-II Wing, Room No.109,
Sena Bhawan, IHQ of MoD (Army),
New Delhi-110011.
4. The Brigadier,
OIC Records,
AOC Records,
Sikandrabad,
PIN-900453
C/o 56 APO.
5. The Lieutenant Colonel,
Central Vehicle Depot now VSD (Vehicle Sub Depot)
Delhi Cantt,
New Delhi-110010.
6. The OIC (Officer-in-Charge),
AOC Records,
Sikandrabad,
PIN-900453
C/o 56 APO.
-Respondents
(By Advocate Shri Dilbagh Singh)
ORDER
Present OA has been filed by the applicants, four in number, under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking following relief:
"i) To quash and set-aside the Posting/Transfer order dated 27.5.2023 in respect of applicant herein and order dated 18.7.2023 whereby representation of applicant has been rejected and to further direct the respondents that the applicants be adjusted/absorbed/posted in alternate units/organizations of Ministry of Defence in Delhi in same rank with same pay protection in the same Station (Delhi) or Sunita 2026.03.13 13:18:54 Dutt +05'30' 3 OA No.2400/2023 at least at the places within 50 kms parameter/choice posting.
And/or
ii) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper may also be awarded to the applicant."
2. Factual Matrix 2.1 The applicants were employed in different posts under the Firefighting Wing of the VSD, Delhi Cantt., Ministry of Defence on different dates as mentioned in the record.
2.2 Vide transfer order dated 27.05.2023, they were transferred to various positions, specifically including Ganganagar (FAD Ganganagar) and COD Agra. 2.3 All applicants were earlier posted at Leh, Ladakh. Details of their previous postings, dates of transfer, and subsequent postings to Delhi are as follows:
S.No. Name of Applicant Post/Designation Place of Transfer (vide order dated 27.5.2023)
1. Pardeep Kumar FED 24 FAD Ganganagar
2. Yashpal Fireman COD Agra
3. Sumit Fireman 24 FAD Ganganagar
4. Sandeep Fireman 24 FAD Ganganagar 2.4 Being aggrieved by the said transfer order, the applicants submitted detailed representations challenging the transfers.
Sunita 2026.03.13 13:18:54 Dutt +05'30' 4 OA No.2400/2023 2.5 As the respondents did not respond to the representations submitted by the applicants, they filed OA No. 1796 of 2023. This Tribunal, by order dated 13.06.2023, directed the respondents to consider the pending representations of the applicants and pass a speaking order.
2.6 The respondents, by order dated 18.07.2023, rejected the requests of the applicants. Being aggrieved, the applicants have filed the present OA seeking the aforementioned relief.
3. Pursuant to the notices issued, the respondents entered appearance and filed their short reply, to which applicants have filed the rejoinder.
4. Submissions by Learned Counsel for the Applicants:
4.1 Learned counsel for the applicants states that the order produced by the learned counsel for the respondents in OA No.2161/2024 dated 07.04.2025 is not applicable in the present case and further draws attention of this Tribunal to paras 17, 18 & 19 of the said order, which are reproduced below:
" 17. Learned counsel for applicant much emphasized that applicant would be satisfied if direction is issued to decide his pending representation for cancellation of Sunita 2026.03.13 13:18:54 Dutt +05'30' 5 OA No.2400/2023 transfer/posting as applicant is suffering from hypertension, asthma, sleep study, spine and knee problems and undergoing treatment.
18. Respondents have stated in the counter reply that application for posting of applicant in VSD Delhi on medical grounds has been considered but due to non- availability of vacancy of LHF in VSD Delhi, posting at Delhi is not possible and application of the applicant was turned down and not acceded to. So also, Ms. Neelima Rathore, learned senior panel counsel for Central Government has referred to the record that on 19.04.2024, applicant submitted request/representation to OIC, AOC, Records for cancellation/change of station posting order on medical grounds. The AOC Records, examined the application dated 19.04.2024 and case of applicant in detail and posting/transfer of applicant to 26 AMN Coy on disbandment basis issued vide Office letter dated 27.05.2024 duly approved by IHQ of MoD (Army) dated 08.05.2023, on 18.05.2024 VSD-Delhi Unit was also informed. So also, Integrated HQ of MoD (Army) vide letter dated 01.07.2024 considered representation of applicant and turned down as there is no vacancy available in VSD. The applicant is surplus personnel and re-deployed as per policy issued by the competent authority. The respondents have considered pending representation dated 19.04.2024 and AOC Records as well as Integrated Headquarter of Ministry of Defence (Army) vide letter dated 18.05.2024 and 01.07.2024 respectively, categorically stated that there is no vacancy available in VSD, Delhi Cantt. The applicant is surplus individual and not been deployed and retained, may invite major financial & Accounting irregularities. The applicant's representation along with medical documents examined by IHQ of MoD (Army) and AOC Records and has been rejected on 09.07.2024.
19. I am of the opinion that applicant is surplus employee posted vide letter dated 27.05.2023 and directed to be relieved on 04.05.2024 to report to 26 AMN Coy on disbandment basis in accordance with policy applicable for all employees. So also, respondents considered the representation of applicant and applicant also failed to establish infringement of any statutory rule, malafide and impugned orders being without jurisdiction, present OA lacks merit, no interference is called for. Transfer/posting orders do not give rise to any civil consequences and principles of natural justice not attracted."
4.2 Analysing the said order, learned counsel for the applicants states that the said order is concerned with Sunita 2026.03.13 13:18:54 Dutt +05'30' 6 OA No.2400/2023 placement of surplus employees but in the present case the applicant is seeking relief as he was transferred from a non-tenure post prior to expiry of six years, which is the minimum required period for transferring an employee to other place.
4.3 Learned counsel for the applicants further states that he has made a chart under Paragraph 4.1 of the OA which describes the details of the facts regarding the present applicants, which have been mentioned at Sl. No.1 of the said chart. According to the said chart, the applicants were in Leh and Ladakh from 23.01.2012 and were transferred back to Delhi on a non-tenure post on 30.11.2021. The respondents have violated their own policy by transferring the applicants vide order dated 27.05.2023. Being aggrieved, the applicants filed OA No.1796/2023 and this Tribunal vide order dated 13.06.2023, directed the respondents to look into their grievances and pass a reasoned and speaking order. The respondents accordingly passed a reasoned and speaking order dated 18.07.2023. Aggrieved to the said order, the applicants again approached this Tribunal and filed the present OA.
Sunita 2026.03.13
13:18:54
Dutt +05'30'
7
OA No.2400/2023
4.4 The crux of the arguments made by the learned
counsel for the applicants is that the applicants have been discriminated as they have been transferred by the respondents from a non tenure post before the expiry of six years which is mandatory before being transferred to another place. Learned counsel further submits that the applicants have specific submissions in their representation (point no.9). However, the detailed speaking order passed by the respondents on 18.07.2023 has not dealt with the said specific submissions. To substantiate, learned counsel states that there are other employees who have been posted at non-tenure station from tenure station but have not been transferred out, he gives names of four persons as such examples at para 5.1 of the OA.
4.5 Learned counsel for the applicants refers to clause 6
(d) of the transfer policy of the respondents, which states that "Non- Tenure Stations Remaining Army/AOC units where AOC civil persons are authorized on the PE/WE. Minimum prescribed tenure is six years". 4.6 Learned counsel for the applicants further refers to the para 5.5 of the OA, which is reproduced below:
Sunita 2026.03.13 13:18:54 Dutt +05'30' 8 OA No.2400/2023 "That the representation of applicant has been rejected on wrong facts as it is recorded in para (j) "The contention of the applicants raised vide Para 22 of their representations are not tenable. As per para 10 of ROI of C/1/2022. Junior most person posted in the affected unit in respected cat/grade will be posted out to the extent of maintaining the held strength as per revised auth. Posting in respect of fire-staff posted in VSD Delhi/OSD Delhi have been issued as per following aspects:-
(i) Indls. Above 57 yrs age retained as perpara 8(a) of ROI C/01/22.
(ii) The senior most and indls who had reported from tenure unit and served minimum tenure as per TOS in Delhi station retained as per auth.
(iii) Posting of bal surplus fireman have been issued to units within 50km and beyond as per availability (Sr. To Jr.) The following employees (Fireman) retained in VSD are neither 57 years old nor posted from tenure posted thus shows that grievance of applicant are being rejected on wrong facts:-
(i) Vijay Kumar
(ii) Neeraj Kumar Tomar
(iii) Pradeep Dhakk
(iv) Jitendra Singh
(v) Mahesh Kumar
(vi) Dharambeer
(vii) Gaurav Kumar
(viii) Om Prakash From the above, it is apparent that grievance of applicant of retaining in VSD Delhi (as all applicants herein are posted as Non-Tenure posted) has been rejected on wrong facts thus making the impugned order as bad in law."
4.7 He further states that if the respondents have intended to transfer the applicants, the applicants should Sunita 2026.03.13 13:18:54 Dutt +05'30' 9 OA No.2400/2023 be given options to choose the place of posting. He refers to paras 5.15 and 5.17 of the OA in this regard, that the applicants were never given any option as regards the transferred place.
5. Submission by Learned Counsel for Respondents 5.1 Learned counsel for the respondents refers to para 4 and 5 of the counter affidavit and states that the applicants were posted at CVD, Delhi and the respondents vide their order dated 18.11.2022 have declared that OD Shakurbasti and CVD, Delhi have been disbanded. Accordingly, the employees including the applicants, who were posted there, became surplus. The respondents are supposed to deploy the surplus staff as per the available vacancies in respect of their trade/work. He further submits that due to non-availability of the vacancies in the trade which the applicants belonged, the applicants could not be accommodated at a place within 50 kms. of Delhi.
5.2 Learned counsel for the respondents further refers to para 5 of the counter affidavit, wherein the respondents have mentioned that in case of the surplus staff, the juniormost employee has to be transferred out and the seniors have to be retained and accordingly, the Sunita 2026.03.13 13:18:54 Dutt +05'30' 10 OA No.2400/2023 applicants being the juniormost were transferred out. The rules of transfer policy concerning the tenure and non- tenure postings is not applicable in case of surplus employees as in the case of disbanding of OD Shakurbasti and CVD, Delhi.
5.3 Learned counsel for the respondents further refers to the counter affidavit filed by the respondents on 15.10.2024 and para 7 (iv) of the said counter is reproduced hereunder:
"(iv) The contention of applicant that they were posted from tenure station to peace station and should not be posted out till completion of their tenure, cannot be considered as their units were disbanded and para 25
(a) (iii) of ROI C/l/2022 cannot be considered/implemented as directions issued by IHQ of MoD (Army) to adjust Fire Staff in AOC Units/Depot.
Hence, the applicants can give their choice station except Delhi Station, which will be examined subject to availability of vacancy."
5.4 He further relied on Para 7 (v) of the said counter, which reads as under:
"(v) Notwithstanding the instructions issued here under the provisions of para 30 of ROI. Office-in-Charge AOC Records on the directions of IHQ of MoD (Army) (OS-8C) can order postings of the civilians personnel question at any time in the interest of organisation without assigning any reasons. Generally such contingencies will be restricted to the minimum, but where it is inescapable, the posting will be ordered by Office-in-
Charge AOC Records and no representation against such posting will be entertained."
Sunita 2026.03.13
13:18:54
Dutt +05'30'
11
OA No.2400/2023
5.5 Learned counsel for the respondents submits that
the applicants belongs to AOC and their service entails all India service liability, hence, the applicants cannot claim that they should not be transferred, in order to serve in the interest of the organization. He further refers to clause 10(d) of the guidelines of transfer policy dated 10.05.2022, which is reproduced below:
"(d) The above instrs will not be applicable to units/est to be disbanded. In such cases, distr of employees of unit under disbandment would be guided by factors such Q as avl of suitable vacs and desired grade/ service profile in recipient/ alternate org."
5.6 Learned counsel of the respondents further submits that the organization retains the discretion to post the employees anywhere in India in the interest of organization. In support of his averments, he refers to clause 30 & 31 of the aforementioned transfer policy, which read as under:
"30. Notwithstanding the instrs issued hereunder, Officer-in-Charge AOC Records on the direction of IHQ of MoD (Army) (OS-SC) can order postings of the civilian personnel in question at any time in the interest of organisation without assigning any reasons. Generally such contingencies will be restricted to the minimum, but where it is inescapable, the postings will be ordered by Officer-in-Charge AOC Records and no representations against such postings will be entertained.
31. Although efforts have been made to stipulate broad policy guidelines to cover all possible eventualities, there may still be situations which may not have been specifically catered for in the above ROI. In such case OIC AOC Records being the Cadre Controlling Authority Sunita 2026.03.13 13:18:54 Dutt +05'30' 12 OA No.2400/2023 may take suitable decision w.r.t posting/ transfers, where necessary, with the apvl of IHQ of MoD (Army)."
5.7 Learned counsel for the respondents further cited the order dated 07.04.2025 in OA No.2161/2024. Para 11 of the said order reads as under:
"11. ....... Applicant has no vested right to seek posting of his own choice and after consideration of representation for cancellation of posting, proposal turned down on 09.07.2024. Ms. Rathore placed heavy reliance on case of S.K. Nausad Rahaman Vs. Union of India in Civil Appeal No.1243/2022 vide judgment dated 10.03.2022, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that postings of an employee are governed by exigencies of service, employees have no fundamental right to claim transfer or posting of their choice. So also relied on Tribunal's Order dated 04.04.2024 passed in OA No.455/2023 [Jaipur Bench, Jaipur)."
5.8 Learned counsel for the respondents, in support of his contentions, further relies upon the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matters of Rajinder Singh and Others vs. State of UP and Others, (2009) 15 SCC 178 and Shilpi Bose vs. State of Bihar, (1991) Supp.2 SCC 659.
6. Analysis 6.1 The learned counsel for the applicants has emphasized the following in support of the relief sought by the applicants:
(i) The applicants had not completed the mandatory six-year tenure at their posting in Delhi (DSD Delhi Sunita 2026.03.13 13:18:54 Dutt +05'30' 13 OA No.2400/2023 Cantt). Hence, as per clause 6 (b) of the extant transfer policy, the respondents could not have transferred the applicants before completion of six years.
(ii) The respondents did not provide any option to the applicants before transferring them out of Delhi.
(iii) Other similarly placed employees who had completed six years were retained in Delhi, and the present applicants were discriminated against by being placed outside Delhi.
6.2 However, the aforementioned submissions by learned counsel for the applicants have concealed the crucial fact that the unit in which the applicants were working had been disbanded on 18.11.2022, and they were declared surplus due to the disbanding of the said unit (CVD Delhi).
6.3 Clause 6 (b) of the transfer policy applies to normal transfers. However, in the present case, the transfers involved redeployment of surplus staff from a disbanded unit. Clause 10 (d) of the transfer policy provides that the general transfer guidelines are not applicable to employees rendered surplus due to disbandment.
Sunita 2026.03.13
13:18:54
Dutt +05'30'
14
OA No.2400/2023
Moreover, the applicants had joined positions with All India transfer liability.
6.4 The respondents relied on the order dated 07.04.2025 in OA No. 2161 of 2024, and submitted that government employees have no vested right to postings of their choice. This position is supported by Apex Court decisions in Rajinder Singh (supra) and Shilpi Bose (supra). The ratio of the aforementioned Apex Court judgments is squarely applicable to the present case. 6.5 Clause 10(d) of the transfer policy clearly states that other clauses of the transfer guidelines are not applicable in case of employees rendered surplus due to disbanding of units.
7. Conclusion:
7.1 In view of the above, the present OA lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.
8. No order as to costs.
9. All Pending MAs, if any, stand disposed of.
(Dr. Chhabilendra Roul) Member (A) 'SD' Sunita 2026.03.13 13:18:54 Dutt +05'30'