Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Sushama Sharma vs Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti on 9 September, 2025
1 o.a. 350.01172.2024
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
KOLKATA BENCH, KOLKATA
No. O.A. 350/01172/2024 Heard on 18.08.2025
Date of order: 09.09.2025
Present : Hon'ble Mr. Anindo Majumdar, Administrative Member
Sushama Sharma, W/o Satish Thakur, aged
about 53 years, Occupation - PGT Hindi at
Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Bankura
permanently residing at 1/D Amar Paribar
Apartment, Karangapara Road, Near Post Office,
Durgapur (m Corp.), Paschim Bardhaman, Pin
713201, West Bengal.
........ Applicant.
- VERSUS-
1. Union of India represented by the Secretary,
Ministry of Human Resource Development,
Department of School Education and Literacy,
Government of India, Shastri Bhawan, New
Delhi - 110115;
2. The Commissioner, Jawahar Navodaya
Vidyalaya, Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, B-15,
Institutional Area, Sector - 62, Noida, Uttar
Pradesh - 201307;
3. The Deputy Commissioner, NVS, Regional
Office, Patna, Karpuri Thakur Sadan, Kendriya
Karyalay Parisar, Block - A & B, 5th Floor,
Ashiyana Digha Road, Patna - 800025;
4. The Principal, Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya,
Kalpathar, Bankura, West Bengal, Pin - 722146
....... Respondents.
For the Applicant : Mr. S.S. Sharma , Counsel
Mr. A. Chakraborty, Counsel
For the Respondents : Mr. P. Bajpayee, Counsel
Digitally signed by DhanuRam Hansda
DhanuRam
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6595, OID.2.5.4.65=
1335963871619011253g9LkE5GCXYJC4, Phone=
ae67f2fe2825a3d09ab7e1f6c3245d45a1b89c1257419c6eb7e8dad5b650551
5, PostalCode=711112, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER=
c6a08597b4f862e0885e118c2835105ca8a490fa0a973f858e89b777a0a70d7
1, CN=DhanuRam Hansda
Hansda Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2025.09.10 11:55:25+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0
2 o.a. 350.01172.2024
ORDER
In accordance with the order of the Hon'ble Chairman, Central Administrative Tribunal, dated 10.09.2021 issued under Sub -Section (6) of Section 5 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, this matter can be taken up by a Bench consisting of a single member. Accordingly, this matter is taken up for disposal by this Single Bench.
2. The applicant has filed this Original Application, seeking the following relief(s):
"i. Penal Transfer Order passed by the Respondent No. 3 dated 31.08.2023 (Order NO. F.DP 166/SushamaSharma/PGT(Hindi)/E-III/NVS(PTR)/2023-24/6296) is bad in law and liable to be quashed.
ii. To pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper."
3. The applicant is a postgraduate teacher in Navodaya Vidyalaya and was posted at Bankura. The applicant was arraigned as an accused in connection with GR case No. 735/2021 arising out of Bankura Police Station case No. 147/2021 dated 18.07.2021, under section 370(5)(7)/372/373/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, read with section 75/80/81 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 (Annexure A/3). The applicant was arrested on 18.07.2021 and was granted bail by the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta on 06.12.2022 and released from judicial custody on 09.12.2022 (Annexure A/6).The applicant was placed under suspension, vide order dated 19.07.2021.
Digitally signed by DhanuRam Hansda DhanuRam DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6595, OID.2.5.4.65= 1335963871619011253g9LkE5GCXYJC4, Phone= ae67f2fe2825a3d09ab7e1f6c3245d45a1b89c1257419c6eb7e8dad5b650551 5, PostalCode=711112, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= c6a08597b4f862e0885e118c2835105ca8a490fa0a973f858e89b777a0a70d7 1, CN=DhanuRam Hansda Hansda Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.09.10 11:55:25+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 3 o.a. 350.01172.2024
4. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the applicant, vide Memorandum dated 10.09.2021 which culminated in the imposition of a major penalty upon the applicant, vide order dated 21.08.2023 (Annexure A-
11). As per the said order, the penalty of reduction to a lower stage by three years in the time scale of pay for a period of three years with cumulative effect was imposed upon the applicant with further direction that she would not earn increment during the period, and that the reduction will have the effect of postponing her future increments of pay.
5. The suspension of the applicant ordered, vide order dated 19.07.2021 was revoked vide order of the Deputy Commissioner, Navodaya Vidyalaya dated 31.08.2023 (Annexure A-12). Vide the said order, the applicant was posted to Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, East Singhbhum (Jharkhand).
6. The applicant submitted an appeal to the Commissioner Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, vide her letter dated 5th September, 2023 against the penalty imposed upon her as well as the order transferring her from JNV Bankura to JNV East Singhbhum (Jharkhand)(Annexure A-13).
7. The applicant, thereafter filed an Original Application before this Tribunal being O.A. No. 350/00371/2024, which was disposed of by this Tribunal, vide order dated 09.04.2024 at admission stage with direction upon the respondent authority to consider the pending representation of the applicant dated 05.09.2023, as per extant rules and to intimate the decision taken to the applicant, vide a reasoned and speaking order (Annexure A-14). Digitally signed by DhanuRam Hansda DhanuRam DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6595, OID.2.5.4.65= 1335963871619011253g9LkE5GCXYJC4, Phone= ae67f2fe2825a3d09ab7e1f6c3245d45a1b89c1257419c6eb7e8dad5b650551 5, PostalCode=711112, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= c6a08597b4f862e0885e118c2835105ca8a490fa0a973f858e89b777a0a70d7 1, CN=DhanuRam Hansda Hansda Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.09.10 11:55:25+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 4 o.a. 350.01172.2024
8. In pursuance of the above mentioned order of this Tribunal, the Appellate Authority disposed of the appeal of the applicant, vide order dated 13th October, 2023 (Annexure A-16) by modifying the penalty imposed upon her by the disciplinary authority. The said order is, however, silent on the prayer of the applicant against her transfer to JNV, East Singhbhum.
9. The applicant has filed this Original Application against and praying for the relief(s) mentioned that Para 2 above.
10. Heard the Ld. Counsels and considered the material on record.
11. At hearing, Ld. Counsel for the applicant submitted that the husband of the applicant is working at Bankura. He further submitted that the applicant is childless and requires to stay with her husband. He further submitted that the applicant is undergoing treatment and referred to the medical documents that he has annexed to the Original Application (Annexure A/1). Ld. Counsel for the applicant, submitted that in case it was not possible to retain the applicant at Bankura, she may be posted at a place near Bankura. Ld. Counsel for the applicant also relied upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court dated 10th March, 2022 the case of SK. Nausad Rahaman Vs. Union of India in Civil Appeal No. 1243 of 2022.
12. At hearing, Ld. Counsel for the respondents reiterated the averments made by the respondents in their reply to the Original Application. He submitted that the applicant has not yet joined her new place of posting in East Singham (Jharkhand). He further submitted that there was no vacancy Digitally signed by DhanuRam Hansda DhanuRam DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6595, OID.2.5.4.65= 1335963871619011253g9LkE5GCXYJC4, Phone= ae67f2fe2825a3d09ab7e1f6c3245d45a1b89c1257419c6eb7e8dad5b650551 5, PostalCode=711112, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= c6a08597b4f862e0885e118c2835105ca8a490fa0a973f858e89b777a0a70d7 1, CN=DhanuRam Hansda Hansda Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.09.10 11:55:25+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 5 o.a. 350.01172.2024 available at Navodaya Vidyalaya at Bankura and that the applicant could therefore not be retained there.
13. The Ld. Counsel for the respondents relied on the judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh dated 14th September, 2015 in the case of Asif Mohammad Khan Vs. the State of M.P. and others in WP No. 7440/2013, which was decided along with W.A. No. 607/2015 and W.A. No. 652/2015. The judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in W.P. 7822-2015 dtd. 01.12.2015 in the case of Prakash Chandra Banodha Vs. the Directorate of Health Services and the judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh dated 15/11/2018 in the case of L.P. Saket vs. Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited.
Findings
14. Extracts from the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court dated 10th March 2022 in the case of Sk. Nausad Rahaman vs. Union of India & Ors. are reproduced below:
"51. The state in the present case has been guided by two objectives: first, the potential for abuse of ICTs and second, the distortion which is caused in service leading to plethora of litigation. The State while formulating a policy for its own employees has to give due consideration to the importance of protecting family life as an element of the dignity of the person and a postulate of privacy. How a particular policy should be modulated to take into account the necessities of maintaining family life may be left at the threshold to be determined by the State. In crafting its policy however the State cannot be heard to say that it will be oblivious to basic constitutional values, including the preservation of family life which is an incident of Article 21."
"53. ... Hence while we uphold the judgment of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, we leave it open to the respondents to revisit the policy to accommodate posting of spouses, the needs of the disabled and compassionate grounds. Such an exercise has to be left within the domain of the executive, ensuring in the process that constitutional values which underlie Articles 14, Digitally signed by DhanuRam Hansda DhanuRam DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6595, OID.2.5.4.65= 1335963871619011253g9LkE5GCXYJC4, Phone= ae67f2fe2825a3d09ab7e1f6c3245d45a1b89c1257419c6eb7e8dad5b650551 5, PostalCode=711112, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= c6a08597b4f862e0885e118c2835105ca8a490fa0a973f858e89b777a0a70d7 1, CN=DhanuRam Hansda Hansda Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.09.10 11:55:25+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 6 o.a. 350.01172.2024
15 and 16 and Article 21 of the Constitution are duly protected. The appeals shall be disposed of in the above terms. 54 Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of." The above judgement pertains to an order of the High Court of Kerala pertaining to petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal on the issue of withdrawal of Inter Commissionerate Transfers. The Hon'ble High Court at Kerala had held that such transfer would violate the unique identity of each cadre envisaged under the Recruitment Rules and hence the circular withdrawing, the Inter Commissionarate Transfers is not invalid. The Hon'ble Apex Court, had in this judgment upheld the orders of the High Court of Kerala. On perusal of this judgement, I do not consider it to be strictly applicable to the instant case, and I am of the opinion that the applicant cannot rely on this judgement to seek the relief(s) prayed by her in the instant Original Application.
15. An extract from the Judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh dated 1st December 2015 in WP 7822-2015 in the case of Prakash Chandra Banodha vs. Directorate of Health Services which has been relied upon by the respondents is reproduced below:
"4. Counsel for the State has opposed the writ petition.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on the perusal of the record, it is noticed that the issue if an employee on revocation of order of suspension is required to be posted on the same place has been examined by the full bench of this Court by the judgment dated 14.9.2015 passed in W.P. No. 7440/2013 in the matter of Asif Mohd. Khan v. The State of M.P. wherein the full bench has held that by a composite order, the competent authority can revoke the suspension and simultaneously transfer the employees to another place in public interest. It has further been held that if the authority is competent, he can revoke the suspension and can also transfer the employee. It is open to such an authority to pass the composite order if the situation warrants and whether the transfer can Digitally signed by DhanuRam Hansda DhanuRam DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6595, OID.2.5.4.65= 1335963871619011253g9LkE5GCXYJC4, Phone= ae67f2fe2825a3d09ab7e1f6c3245d45a1b89c1257419c6eb7e8dad5b650551 5, PostalCode=711112, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= c6a08597b4f862e0885e118c2835105ca8a490fa0a973f858e89b777a0a70d7 1, CN=DhanuRam Hansda Hansda Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.09.10 11:55:25+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 7 o.a. 350.01172.2024 stand the trust of judicial scrutiny it will be an independent issue to be decided on the settled legal principles.
6. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the impugned order of revocation of suspension and transfer of the petitioner to a different place has been passed by the competent authority, hence the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality in this regard. So far as the issue of transfer of the petitioner is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been posted at a distant place and the petitioner's wife is in the Government service and is posted at Jawad and his two sons are studying at Mandsaur, but such a ground does not warrant any interference, since undisputedly during the suspension period, the head quarter of the petitioner was fixed as Ujjain and he was not at Jawad or Mandsaur.
7. Every transfer involves some personal problems and inconvenience to the family but that alone does not furnish a ground to interfere in the order of transfer, unless, the order is shown to have been passed in violation of any statutory provisions or suffers from the vice of the mala-fides, which, in the present case does not exists."
An extract from the judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh, dated 14 September 2015, in the case of Asif Mohammed Khan versus State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. is reproduced below:
"41. ... We hold that the question as to whether it is necessary to post an employee at the same place after revocation of order of suspension from where he was suspended, may have to be answered on case to case basis in the context of existence or non-existence of the authority/power in the Authority passing the order in question. If the Authority is competent to revoke suspension as also to transfer the employee, it is open to such Authority to pass a composite order, if the situation so warrants. Whether the transfer can stand the test of judicial scrutiny, will be an independent issue to be decided on the settled legal principles. ..."
An extract from the judgement of the Honourable High Court of Chhattisgarh dated 15/11/2018 in the case of L.P. Saket vs. Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited is reproduced below:
"12. ... There is no right of an employee to claim a place of posting on revocation of suspension as a matter of right and the competent authority can very well transfer an employee to yet another place after revocation of suspension even otherwise keeping the exigencies of service into consideration as also that posting such a person on the same post and place where a departmental enquiry was still going on against him, may not be in the interest of the administration since there Digitally signed by DhanuRam Hansda DhanuRam DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6595, OID.2.5.4.65= 1335963871619011253g9LkE5GCXYJC4, Phone= ae67f2fe2825a3d09ab7e1f6c3245d45a1b89c1257419c6eb7e8dad5b650551 5, PostalCode=711112, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= c6a08597b4f862e0885e118c2835105ca8a490fa0a973f858e89b777a0a70d7 1, CN=DhanuRam Hansda Hansda Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.09.10 11:55:25+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 8 o.a. 350.01172.2024 could be every possibility of such an employee to tamper with the evidence and not allow a free and fair enquiry to be held. We may also notice that during period of suspension, the Head Quarter of an employee is always fixed away from the place of posting which has an object and reason. The same will be defeated if it is held that the employee has a lien on place also."
"14. ... To sum, it cannot be a thumb rule that an employee whose suspension has been revoked has a right to be posted and continued in the same place of posting on revocation of suspension, as he only has a lien on the post and not on the place of posting."
16. Keeping in view the ratio of the above judgements, I am of the opinion that since the criminal case against the applicant is still pending at Bankura, it would not be appropriate in the interest of conducting a free and fair trial to allow the applicant to continue to serve in Bankura, notwithstanding the fact that her suspension has been revoked.
17. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in a number of judicial pronouncements, has held that the transfer and posting is an administrative matter and the courts should not ordinarily interfere with such orders unless they are mala fide or punitive in nature. Extracts from some of the orders of the Hon'ble Apex court in this regard are reproduced below:-
"In B. Varadha Rao v. State of Karnataka and others, reported in (1986) 4 SCC 131, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had the occasion to consider a short point whether an order of transfer is appealable under Rule 19 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957, and the Supreme Court held that 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 and therefore does not result in any alteration of any of the conditions of service to his disadvantage. That a government servant liable to be transferred to a similar post in the same cadre is a normal feature and incident of government service and no government servant can claim to remain in a particular place or in a particular post unless, of course, his appointment itself is to a specified, non-transferable post.
In the case of Shilpi Bose (Mrs) and others v. State of Bihar and others. reported in 1991 Supp (2) SCC 659 the Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Patna High Court and held as under:
"4. In our opinion, the courts should not interfere with a transfer order which is made in public interest and for administrative reasons unless the Digitally signed by DhanuRam Hansda DhanuRam DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6595, OID.2.5.4.65= 1335963871619011253g9LkE5GCXYJC4, Phone= ae67f2fe2825a3d09ab7e1f6c3245d45a1b89c1257419c6eb7e8dad5b650551 5, PostalCode=711112, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= c6a08597b4f862e0885e118c2835105ca8a490fa0a973f858e89b777a0a70d7 1, CN=DhanuRam Hansda Hansda Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.09.10 11:55:25+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 9 o.a. 350.01172.2024 transfer orders are mode in violation of any mandatory statutory rule or on the ground of mala fide. A government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one place or the other; he is liable to be transferred from one place to the other. Transfer orders issued by the competent authority do not violate any of his legal rights. Even if a transfer order is passed in violation of executive instructions or orders, the courts ordinarily should not interfere with the order instead affected party should approach the higher authorities in the department If the courts continue to interfere with day today transfer orders issued by the government and its subordinate authorities, there will be complete chaos in the administration which would not be conducive to public interest."
The law laid down in Shilpi Bose (supra) was again reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others v. S.L. Abbas, reported in (1993) 4 SCC 357, and observed as under:
"6. An order of transfer is an incident of Government service. Fundamental Rule 11 says that "the whole time of a Government servant is at the disposal of the Government which pays him and he may be employed in any manner required by proper authority".
The Hon'ble Supreme Court again dealt with the matter of transfer in the case of State of U.P. and others v. Gobardhan Lal, reported in (2004) 11 SCC 402. The Supreme Court held that a challenge to an order of transfer should normally be eschewed and should not be countenanced by the courts or tribunals as though they are Appellate Authorities over such orders, which could assess the niceties of the administrative needs and requirements of the situation concerned. This is for the reason that courts or tribunals cannot substitute their own decisions in the matter of transfer for that of competent authorities of the State and even allegations of mala fides when made must be such as to inspire confidence in the court or are based on concrete materials and ought not to be entertained on the mere making of it or on consideration borne out of conjectures or surmises and except for strong and convincing reasons, no interference could ordinarily be made with an order of transfer.
Similar view has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajendra Singh and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, reported in (2009) 15 SCC 178, and held as under:
"8. A government servant has no vested right to remain posted at a place of his choice nor can he insist that he must be posted at one place or the other. He is liable to be transferred in the administrative exigencies from one place to the other. Transfer of an employee is not only an incident inherent in the terms of appointment but also implicit as an essential condition of service in the absence of any specific indication to the contrary. No Government can function if the government servant insists that once appointed or posted in a particular place or position, he should continue in such place or position as long as he desires [see State of U.P. v. Gobardhan Lal, (2004) 11 SCC 402; SCC p. 406, Para 7).
9. The courts are always reluctant in interfering with the transfer of an employee unless such transfer is vitiated by violation of some statutory provisions or suffers from mala fides..."Digitally signed by DhanuRam Hansda
DhanuRam DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6595, OID.2.5.4.65= 1335963871619011253g9LkE5GCXYJC4, Phone= ae67f2fe2825a3d09ab7e1f6c3245d45a1b89c1257419c6eb7e8dad5b650551 5, PostalCode=711112, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= c6a08597b4f862e0885e118c2835105ca8a490fa0a973f858e89b777a0a70d7 1, CN=DhanuRam Hansda Hansda Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.09.10 11:55:25+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 10 o.a. 350.01172.2024 In Rajendra Roy Vs. Union of India & another, JT 1992 (6) SC 732, it was held "in a transferable post an order of transfer is a normal consequence and personal difficulties are matters for consideration of the department."
In N.K. Singh Vs.Union of India, JT 1994 (5) SC 298, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that:
"Unless the decision in vitiated by mala fides or infraction of any professed norm of principle governing the transfer, which alone can be scrutinized judicially, there are no judicially manageable standards for scrutinizing all transfers...."
In Abani Kanta Ray Vs. State of Orissa & others 1995 suppl. (4) SCC 169, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed:
"It is settled low that a transfer which is an incident of service is not to be interfered with by the Courts unless it is shown to be clearly arbitrary or vitiated by mala fides or infraction of any professed norm or principle governing the transfer."
In National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. Vs. Shri Bhagwan 2001 (8) SCC 574, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that transfer of a particular employee appointed to the class or category of transferable posts from one place to other is not only an incident, but a condition of service, necessary too in public interest and efficiency in the public administration.
In Public Service Tribunal Bar Association Vs.State of U.P. & another 2003 (4) SCC 104 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held:-
"Transfer is an incident of service and is made in administrative exigencies. Normally it is not to be interfered with by the Courts. This Court consistently has been taken a view that orders of transfer should not be interfered with except in rare cases where the transfer has been made in a vindictive manner."
In Union of India VS. Janardhan Debanath, JT 2004 (2) SC 371, the Hon'ble Apex Court held, "No Government servant or employee of a public undertaking has any legal right to be posted forever at any one particular place or place of his choice since transfer of a particular employee appointed to the class or category of transferable posts from one place to other is not only an incident, but a condition of service, necessary too in public interest and efficiency in the public administration. Unless an order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of mala fide exercise or stated to be in violation of statutory provisions prohibiting any such transfer, the Courts or the Tribunals normally cannot interfere with such orders as a matter of routine, as though they were the appellate authorities substituting their own decision for that of the employer/management..."
In Prasar Bharti Vs. Amarjeet Singh 2007 (9) SCC 539, the Court held that an order of transfer is an administrative ender. There cannot be any doubt that the transfer being an incident of service should not be interfered except some cases where, inter alia, mala fide on the part of the authorities is proved. Digitally signed by DhanuRam Hansda DhanuRam DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6595, OID.2.5.4.65= 1335963871619011253g9LkE5GCXYJC4, Phone= ae67f2fe2825a3d09ab7e1f6c3245d45a1b89c1257419c6eb7e8dad5b650551 5, PostalCode=711112, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= c6a08597b4f862e0885e118c2835105ca8a490fa0a973f858e89b777a0a70d7 1, CN=DhanuRam Hansda Hansda Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.09.10 11:55:25+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 11 o.a. 350.01172.2024 In Union of India & another Vs. Murlidhar Menon & others 2009 (11) SCALE 416 the Hon'ble Court observed that even if the conditions of service are not governed by the statutory rules, yet the transfer being an incident of service, an employee can be transferred which may be governed by the administrative instruction since an employee has no right to be posted at a particular place.
5.2 On perusal of material on record, we are satisfied that the transfer of the applicant vide order dated 15.06 2023 has been made after following the established guidelines. In the light of the catena of judicial pronouncements on the subject quoted above, we do not and it in the claim of the applicant nor do we find any legal infirmity in the impugned transfer order."
I do not consider the impugned transfer order to have been issued in mala fide exercise of power by the respondents authority or to be punitive in nature.
18. The applicant has not joined at her new place of posting as directed, vide order dated 31.08.2023 (Annexure A-12). I am of the opinion that the applicant ought to have complied with the order of the competent authority dated 31.08.2023 transferring her to East Singhbhum (Jharkhand).
19. In view the above discussion, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order of transfer dated 31.08.2023. I am of the opinion that this application lacks merit. The O.A. is accordingly dismissed without any order as to cost.
(Anindo Majumdar) Administrative Member drh Digitally signed by DhanuRam Hansda DhanuRam DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6595, OID.2.5.4.65= 1335963871619011253g9LkE5GCXYJC4, Phone= ae67f2fe2825a3d09ab7e1f6c3245d45a1b89c1257419c6eb7e8dad5b650551 5, PostalCode=711112, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= c6a08597b4f862e0885e118c2835105ca8a490fa0a973f858e89b777a0a70d7 1, CN=DhanuRam Hansda Hansda Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.09.10 11:55:25+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0