Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Hans Raj vs Department Of Telecommunication on 31 October, 2025
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
CIRCUIT BENCH, SHIMLA
O.A. No. 63/608/2025
Reserved On: 26.09.2025
Pronounced On: 31.10.2025
HON'BLE MR. RAMESH SINGH THAKUR, MEMBER (J)
1. Hansraj S/o Sh. Liaq Ram (Aged 52 Years), R/o Vill. Banalgi, P.O.
Kuthar, sub tehsil kishangarh Kuthar, Distt. Solan H.P. Presently
posted as TT In the office of SDE, Microwave OFC Solan H.P.
2. Dev Swaroop S/o Sh. Hari Nand (aged 52 Years), R/o Vill Kathar,
P.O.Panwa, District Sirmaur H.P., Presently posted as JE In the office
of SDE, Microwave OFC Solan H.P.
...Applicants
(BY ADVOCATE: Mr. S. D. Gill)
VERSUS
1. Deleted vide order dated 01.09.2025.
2. Chief General Manger Telecom, Himachal Pradesh Circle, SDA
complex, Kusumpati, Shimla 171009. H.P.
3. General Manager Telecom Solan, HP - 173212 Saproon, district
Solan H.P.
4. Divisional Engineer office of SDE, Microwave OFC Solan H.P.
...Respondents
(BY ADVOCATE: Mr. K. K. Thakur for R2-4)
ORDER
Per: RAMESH SINGH THAKUR, MEMBER (J):
1. The applicant has preferred this instant O.A under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following relief:
"A) That the impugned Annexure A-1 along with further orders passed in continuation of the same order may kindly be quashed and set aside.
B) That the respondent may kindly be restrained to pass such an illegal order and the entire record regarding the transfer and posting of applicant and respondent no. 4 may kindly be called for, for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Tribunal. C) That the entire record pertaining to the case may kindly be called for, for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Tribunal. D) That the present Original Application may kindly be allowed with the costs.
BHANU PARTAP 2025.11.06 17:52:57+05'30' 2 E) Any such other or further orders/directions/relief(s) as may fit and proper in the light of facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be passed."
2. Brief facts of the case as submitted by the applicant are that the applicants submit that Applicant No. 1 is presently working as a Junior Engineer (JE) and Applicant No. 2 as a Telecom Technician (TT) in the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL), and are presently posted at the Office of the Microwave & OFC Station, CN BSNL, Solan.
3. It is contended that ever since Sh. Sushil Kumar and Sh. Manish Kumar took over as their controlling officers in the capacity of Junior Telecom Officers (JTOs), they have been harbouring personal grudges against the applicants for reasons best known to them. It is submitted that the hostile attitude of the said officers stems from the fact that Applicant No. 2 had refused to perform personal household work for JTO Munish Kumar, who is a close associate of Sh. Sushil Kumar. The said JTO Munish Kumar allegedly resides unauthorisedly at Shoghi, District Shimla, nearly 40 kilometres away from his place of posting, and despite this, continues to exercise control over office affairs and subordinate staff, directing them to perform his personal work at home.
4. It is further alleged that because the applicants declined to comply with such improper directions, Respondent No. 4, under the influence and pressure of Sh. Sushil Kumar and Sh. Munish Kumar, took retaliatory action against the applicants, resulting in financial loss and mental harassment. The applicants contend that these actions are borne out of personal vendetta rather than administrative necessity.
BHANU PARTAP 2025.11.06 17:52:57+05'30' 3
5. The applicants challenge the order dated 12.06.2025 (Annexure A-1), issued by Respondent No. 4, whereby they have been deputed to CN Tx-North Station, Baddi. It is submitted that the said deputation order is illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction. The applicants contend there was no requisition or demand from the said station for their deputation and the order was issued without prior approval of the higher competent authorities
6. The applicants further state that they made representations to the higher authorities seeking redressal against the said deputation order, but no action was taken. Instead, they were wrongly marked absent from duty, despite having marked their presence online and being physically present in office. It is submitted that such actions are vindictive and mala fide, causing both financial and mental hardship to the applicants. The applicants also point out that they have previously filed O.A. No. 595/2024 and O.A. No. 414/2025, which are still pending before this Tribunal.
7. It is further averred that Respondent No. 4 is not competent to pass an order of deputation, and even if such action was intended, it required prior approval of the higher authorities and necessary endorsement to the finance department of BSNL.
8. The applicants have challenged the impugned order on the grounds that the impugned action of Respondent No. 4 is illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional, as the applicants were never formally relieved from their existing posts. The respondents could not have compelled them to join another station without a lawful relieving order, deputation to another office without any request or requirement from that office is punitive in nature, undertaken only because the applicants had voiced objections against the illegal BHANU PARTAP 2025.11.06 17:52:57+05'30' 4 and mala fide actions of Respondent No. 4 and his controlling officers.
9. The Respondents filed written statement wherein they have controverted the averments made in the Original Application and submitted that the impugned deputation order dated 12.06.2025 has been issued strictly in accordance with administrative exigencies and in public interest. It has been emphasized that the Divisional Engineer, Solan, has jurisdiction over three sub-divisions, namely Solan, Baddi, and Nahan, and that the staff working in these sub-divisions, including the applicants, are often required to be deputed to other stations within this jurisdiction as per field requirements. It has further been clarified that the applicants are on deputation in CNTX-N, Solan from the Business Area (BA), Solan, H.P. Telecom Circle, and their services are utilized in other sub-divisions whenever operational needs so demand. A copy of the proposal for repatriation of staff has been annexed as Annexure R-1.
10. The respondents submit that on 09.06.2025 to 11.06.2025, Respondent No. 4 had verbally directed the Nahan route party to attend to a major fault in the Baddi-Chandigarh section, which they attended to without objection and duly completed the assigned work. It is further stated that Sh. Surinder Kumar, JE (Baddi), had applied for earned leave from 12.06.2025 to 28.06.2025, thereby resulting in an acute shortage of manpower at Sub-Division Baddi.
11. It has been further contended that in view of the staff shortage and ongoing restoration work, a deputation order was issued on 12.06.2025 directing the applicants to assist in the improvement of BHANU PARTAP 2025.11.06 17:52:57+05'30' 5 the Optical Fibre Cable (OFC) route between Baddi and Chandigarh via Kona, Khol-Mola, and Jayanti Majri, which falls under the jurisdiction of the SDE OFC, Baddi.
12. The respondents clarify that the deputation order did not specify a fixed duration since the completion time depended upon prevailing field conditions and technical challenges. Instead of complying with the order, the applicants failed to report for duty at Baddi. The applicants applied for Earned Leave and Casual Leave, which was duly rejected by the controlling authority, the applicants subsequently procured medical certificates from the Regional Hospital, Solan. Letters declaring the applicants absent without intimation have been annexed as Annexures R-3, while their written refusals to comply with the deputation order are annexed as Annexures R-4 and R-5, and a letter from the SDE Baddi confirming their non-reporting has been filed as Annexure R-6.
13. The respondents have relied upon several judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in support of their contention that transfer and deputation are incidents of service and form part of the terms of employment. Reliance has been placed on: Gujarat Electricity Board & Anr. v. Atmaram Sungomall Poshani, AIR 1989 SC 1433 -- wherein it was held that transfer of an employee in a transferable post is an incident of service, and no government servant or employee has legal right for being posted at any particular place, Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar, AIR 1991 SC 532
-- wherein it was held that courts should not ordinarily interfere with transfer orders made in public interest and for administrative reasons, unless such orders are vitiated by mala fides or violation BHANU PARTAP 2025.11.06 17:52:57+05'30' 6 of statutory rules and various judicial pronouncements and various other orders.
14. On the basis of the above judicial pronouncements, the respondents have argued that the applicants' deputation order has been issued purely on administrative grounds and in public interest. The applicants have not produced any material to demonstrate mala fides, violation of statutory rules, or lack of competence of the issuing authority.
15. The applicants contended that the respondents have deliberately withheld the crucial details as to which sub-stations are facing a shortage or surplus of staff. The plea of "surplus staff" has been taken merely to justify the deputation order dated 12.06.2025, which directed the applicants to be posted at CN Tx-North Station, Baddi, without any demand from that sub-division or approval from competent higher authorities.
16. It is further submitted that the applicants approached this Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 414/2025 (Annexure A-6), challenging the marking of absence. Soon after filing of the said OA, Respondent No. 4 passed the impugned deputation order dated 12.06.2025
17. The applicants state that following the said order, they suffered from various ailments due to mental stress and harassment and were advised rest by medical practitioners. Accordingly, they applied for casual leave followed by medical leave, duly supported with medical prescriptions and fitness certificates annexed as Annexure A-7. Respondent No. 4 constituted a Medical Board and the applicants appeared before the Board on 10.07.2025, and the Board opined that the applicants were indeed suffering from BHANU PARTAP 2025.11.06 17:52:57+05'30' 7 diagnosed ailments and the rest advised was justified (Annexure A-9).
18. It is further contended that the Respondent No. 4 rejected the opinion of the Medical Board he had constituted and declared the applicants absent from duty and applied the "no work no pay" rule. The applicants assert that they have been subjected to continuous victimisation, mental harassment, and financial loss only because they refused to carry out personal work of superior officers and dared to raise their voice against injustice.
19. The applicants contended that the present case does not involve a transfer, but rather an illegal deputation, which is outside the authority of Respondent No. 4, who lacked competence to pass such an order without prior approval of the higher authorities.
20. The respondents filed additional reply to the rejoinder wherein it is further submitted that a request for a second medical opinion was made to the Medical Board, Regional Hospital, Solan, on 26 June 2025 and again on 3 July 2025 (Annexures R-11 and R-12). The Board subsequently issued fitness certificates for both applicants on 6 July 2025, and formal action was taken thereafter on 10 July 2025. The respondents highlight that the prescription slips dated 24 June 2025 contained no diagnosis, tests, or medication, and merely mentioned "rest for two weeks", which cast doubt upon the genuineness of the medical claim (Annexures R-13 to R-15).
21. The respondents further allege that the simultaneous illness of all deputed staff raises serious suspicion. Complaints against the doctors concerned have been forwarded to the Secretary, Health Department, Shimla. They further point out that complaints made by other staff members, namely Sh. Ramesh Kumar- ITT, and Sh.
BHANU PARTAP 2025.11.06 17:52:57+05'30' 8 Inder Singh, ATT, have since been withdrawn, while another employee, Sh. Moti Ram, TT, was warned for failing to reply properly to departmental communication (Annexures R-16 to R-18).
22. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides and gone through pleading and Annexures available on record.
23. From the pleadings itself, it is an admitted fact that Applicant No. 1 is working as Junior Engineer (JE) and Applicant No. 2 as Telecom Technician (TT) under the control of CN BSNL, Solan. Respondent No.4 issued an order dated 12.06.2025 (Annexure A-1), whereby they were directed to work at CN Tx-North Station, Baddi. Against the order the applicants made representations to the higher authorities seeking redressal, but no action was taken. The respondents, in their written statement, have opposed the Original Application and stated that the impugned order has been issued strictly in accordance with administrative exigencies and in the interest of service. It is submitted that the Divisional Engineer, CN-Tx, Solan, exercises administrative control over three sub-divisions--Solan, Baddi, and Nahan--and that the staff posted at Solan is often required to assist other sub-divisions as per field requirements.
24. One of the Junior Engineers at Baddi, namely Sh. Surinder Kumar, had proceeded on earned leave from 12.06.2025 to 28.06.2025, causing shortage of manpower. Therefore, in order to ensure the smooth functioning of the network and maintenance of the Optical Fibre Cable (OFC) route, the applicants were temporarily deputed to CN Tx-North Station, Baddi. It is also contended that such BHANU PARTAP 2025.11.06 17:52:57+05'30' 9 deputations are routine administrative arrangements and part of service exigencies.
25. This Tribunal has considered the matter. It is undisputed that the applicants are employees of BSNL, which is a single corporate entity, and that both Solan and Baddi sub-divisions fall under the same Divisional Engineer (CN Tx, Solan). Hence, the deputation of staff from one sub-division to another within the same administrative control cannot be treated as a transfer to a different establishment. Deputation within the same unit is part of internal management and operational arrangement.
26. The respondents have placed on record that the deputation was made in view of an acute shortage of field staff in Baddi sub-division due to the leave of one Junior Engineer. The applicants have not disputed the fact of such leave or the existence of OFC restoration work. Therefore, the plea that the deputation order was issued without administrative necessity is not tenable.
27. It is a well-settled proposition of law that transfer or deputation is an incident of service and that an employee holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at a particular station. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gujarat Electricity Board v. Atmaram Sungomall Poshani, AIR 1989 SC 1433, and Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar, AIR 1991 SC 532, has held that courts should not ordinarily interfere with such orders unless they are shown to be vitiated by mala fides or violation of statutory rules.
28. The deputation order dated 12.06.2025 does not indicate any element of punishment or personal bias. It is a short-term deployment within the same Division to meet operational BHANU PARTAP 2025.11.06 17:52:57+05'30' 10 requirements. The Tribunal, therefore, finds no basis to infer mala fides or arbitrariness.
29. No violation of any statutory rule or procedural irregularity has been shown by the applicants. The deputation order was issued by the competent authority within the same administrative unit of BSNL and does not suffer from any legal infirmity. There is, therefore, no ground for interference by this Tribunal in exercise of its limited judicial review.
30. In view of the above discussion, the Tribunal holds that the impugned order dated 12.06.2025 was issued in administrative exigency, by a competent authority, and in the interest of service. The applicants have failed to establish that the action was punitive, mala fide, or otherwise arbitrary.
31. In light of the findings recorded hereinabove, the Original Application is dismissed. The impugned deputation order dated 12.06.2025 (Annexure A-1) is upheld as a valid administrative action. The applicants are directed to report for duty at the place of deputation forthwith, if they have not already done so. However, it is observed that if the applicants have any subsisting grievance regarding working conditions or duration of deputation, they shall be at liberty to make a representation to the competent authority, which shall be considered in accordance with rules and administrative requirements.
32. No order as to costs.
(RAMESH SINGH THAKUR)
Member (J)
bp
BHANU PARTAP 2025.11.06 17:52:57+05'30'