Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Noopur Chauhan vs Defence on 29 January, 2025
1
OANo.3099/2023
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench
OA No. 3099/2023
Reserved on: 06.01.2025
Pronounced on: 29.01.2025
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A)
Ms. Noopur Chauhan, Aged 38 Years,
w/o Sh. Rajiv Chuahan,
Working as Civilian Switch Board Operator,
1 AHQ Signal Regt., Regt. Signals Enclave, New Delhi.
r/o L-1/64, Gulshan Botnia, Sector 144, Noida (UP)-
201304
.....Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Yogesh Sharma)
VERSUS
1. Union of India
Through Secretary,
Ministry of Defence, South Block
Govt. of India, New Delhi-110001.
2. The Director General,
Directorate General of Signals,
General Staff Branch, DHQ PO, New Delhi-
110010
3. The Officer-in-Charge,
The Records Signals,
c/o 56 APO.
4. The Commanding Officer,
1 AHQ Signal Regt., Signals Enclave,
Rao Tula Ram Marg, New Delhi-110010
-Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. L.C. Singhi)
2
OANo.3099/2023
ORDER
By way of the present O.A., the applicant seeks the following relief:
i. That the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order of quashing the impugned order dt. 14.6.2023 (Annex.A/1) in respect of applicant, declaring to the effect that the same are illegal, arbitrary and against the transfer policy and consequently pass an order allowing the applicant to serve at the same /present station as per transfer policy.
ii. That the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order directing the respondents to accommodate the applicant to the nearby stations, in case it is not possible to accommodate the applicant at the same station for any reason justify reason as per policy.
iii. Any other relief which the Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and proper may also be granted to the applicants along with the costs of litigation.
BRIEF FACTS:
The applicant was initially appointed to the post of Civilian Switch Board Operator (CSBO) on 17.08.2011 and since her appointment she is working on the same post till date. She was initially posted in Mathura and only on 10.02.2015, she was posted in the Headquarters at New Delhi.
The applicant contends that prior to 2022, there was no rotational transfer policy for Civilian Switch Board Operators and Telephone Operators and Telephone Supervisors and only vide letter dated 06.12.2022, transfer policy was introduced. In the transfer policy there is provision of submitting the posting choices before transfer. The Records Office, i.e. Respondent No.3, vide letter dated 30.03.2023 directed Respondent No.4 to forward the choice stations for transfer/posting with respect to CSBOs/Tele/SB Supervisors as per prescribed format and duly recommended by head of establishment/CSs to this HQ by 3 OANo.3099/2023 02.04.2023. The applicant contends that the letter dated 02.04.2023 was not circulated by the Respondent No. 4 immediately and same was circulated very late and directed the concerned staff to submit their choice stations within a very short time. The applicant has stated that she submitted her option in the prescribed format in the office of the respondent No. 4. She submitted her option for the following three stations namely; (i) Alwar, (ii) Jaipur and (iii) Chandigarh.
2. The applicant states that the respondents without considering the options submitted by her and other similarly situated employees passed the impugned transfer order dated 14.06.2023 by which the applicant has been ordered to be transferred from the present station i.e. New Delhi to Jodhpur. Thereafter, the applicant immediately approached the concerned authority and came to know that Respondent No. 4 had not forwarded the option form submitted by the applicant and other employees within the prescribed time and that is why the respondent No.2 passed the impugned order of transfer without taking into consideration the options submitted by the applicant. Thereafter, the applicant submitted her representation dated 18.8.2023 requesting to cancel or to modify her transfer order as per her choice/option. However, the respondents vide order dated 14.08.2023 considered only few cases for modification of transfer order. 4 OANo.3099/2023
3. The applicant states that it is a well settled principle of law that when the issue of administrative exigency is raised before the court it is mandated upon the respondents/Government to explain the exigency and the circumstances under which a deviation from the rules has been taken to transfer an employee Harpal Singh Kashyap Vs. NCT of Delhi & Ors. 2005(2) ATJ 124.
4. The respondents in their reply contend that the formulation and implementation of Rotational Transfer Policy was circulated to all CSBOs posted at 1 Army HQ Signal Regiment vide office order No.494/ADM dated 05/04/2023 (Annexure- R/5) and all CSBOs of 1 Army HQ Signal Regiment were well informed in time about the policy before implementation through various joint Consultative Machinery (JCM) Welfare Committee Meetings, however, despite clear instructions which were repeatedly given, only 30 CSBOs, out of 71, had submitted their choices for posting stations. The choices of 30 CSBOs were thereafter forwarded to HQ Western Command (Signals) by 1 Army HQ Signal Regiment vide their letter dated 04/05/2023. (Annexure R-6). The same were further forwarded to the appointing authority, Le. Records Signals vide HQ Western Command (Signals) letter dated 31.05.2023.
5. The respondents have vehemently opposed the contentions raised by the applicant in their reply and submit that she has 5 OANo.3099/2023 neither submitted her choice of posting nor applied for posting on spouse ground in stipulated time frame as per Para 11 (f) and (j) of implementation instructions issued vide Signals Records letter dated 06.12.2022. Hence, her posting order was issued to South Western Command Signal Regiment, Jaipur, unilaterally by Records Signals, as per availability of vacancy. They further submit that no supporting documents are found on records to corroborate the averments made by the applicant. ANALYSIS:-
6. Applicant is working as a Civilian Switch Board Operator (CSBO) in the respondent organization. She has been transferred from present posting at 1 Army Headquarter Signal Regiment vide posting order dated 14.06.2023 (Annexure-A1). A rotational transfer policy for the employers including CSBO employees was put into place by the respondents on 22.09.2022.
7. Para (f) of the above mentioned transfer policy provides for submission of posting choices. For facility of reference, the relevant portion is as follows:-
"(f) Posting Choices. CSBOs/Tele Supervisors will submit their choice of next posting (maximum three) to Signals Records for consideration minimum six months prior to completion of tenure, i.e upto two & half years tenure in the current establishment/station. In case of non-receipt of choice, posting order will be issued as per availability of vacancy. The Competent Authority, after considering individual's request vis-à-vis availability of vacancies and organisational interest, will decide and issue transfer order.
Organisational interest will always take precedence over personal requirements."
6OANo.3099/2023
8. Para (j) also provides for posting on the ground of spouse posting & posting of CSBO:
"(j) Spouse Postings & Posting of CSBOs/Tele Supervisors with Disability Having Dependents with Disability DoP&T guidelines on postings of spouses at the same station and postings of disabled Government servants/parents of disabled children as amended from time to time will be followed."
9. The rotational transfer policy was circulated to all CSPOs posted at 1 Army Headquarter Signal Regiment vide letter dated 05.04.2023. Thirty CSPOs out of seventy-one submitted their choices for posting station. Examination of Annexure R-7 dated 31.05.2023 regarding submission of preference/choice station/ representation of CSPOs under Rotational Transfer Policy (RTP) reveals that a number of employees who have been transferred on 14.06.2023 (Annexure A-1) and submitted their transfer request were working at 1 Army Headquarter Signal Regiment (where the applicant was also working) and only after coming to know of submission of choices the employees submitted their preference/choice for stations of posting. Hence, the assertion of the applicant that she is unaware of transfer policy and submission of three choices for posting is incorrect. The applicant has neither submitted her choice for posting nor applied for choice of spouse posting in stipulated time format as mentioned in Para 11 (f & j) of implementation of instructions issued on 06.12.2022. Hence the posting order was issued to South Western Command Signal Regiment.
7OANo.3099/2023
10. From catena of judgements of the Hon'ble Court, it can be stated that the Courts can interfere in the transfer order only if such orders are issued by the incompetent authority, with mala fide intention and transfer order issued are in violation of any Acts/Rules. To bring clarity on the issue and for facility of reference, it would be proper to refer to the following judgements:-
(i) In the matter of Mrs. Shilpi Bose and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others, AIR 1991 SC 532, wherein, in para 4, it is held that:-
"4. In our opinion, the Courts should not interfere with a transfer Order which are made in public interest and for administrative reasons unless the transfer Orders are made in violation of any mandatory statutory Rule or on the ground of malafide. 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-to-day 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 High Court over looked these aspects in interfering with the transfer Orders."
(ii) In the case of Union of India and Others Vs. S.L. Abbas,(1993) 4 SCC 357, wherein, it has been held in para Nos.6, 7, 8 and 10 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". Fundamental Rule 15 says that "the President may transfer a government servant from one post to another". That the respondent is liable to transfer anywhere in India is not in dispute. It is not the case of the respondent that order of his transfer is vitiated by mala fides on the part of the authority making the order,- though the Tribunal does say so merely because certain guidelines issued by the Central Government are 8 OANo.3099/2023 not followed, with which finding we shall deal later. The respondent attributed "mischief" to his immediate superior who had nothing to do with his transfer. All he says is that he should not be transferred because his wife is working at Shillong, his children are studying there and also because his health had suffered a setback some time ago. He relies upon certain executive instructions issued by the Government in that behalf. Those instructions are in the nature of guidelines. They do not have statutory force.
7. Who should be transferred where, is a matter for the appropriate authority to decide. Unless the order of transfer is vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any statutory provisions, the Court cannot interfere with it. While ordering the transfer, there is no doubt, the authority must keep in mind the guidelines issued by the Government on the subject. Similarly if a person makes any representation with respect to his transfer, the appropriate authority must consider the same having regard to the exigencies of administration. The guidelines say that as far as possible, husband and wife must be posted at the same place. The said guideline however does not confer upon the government employee a legally enforceable right.
8. The jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal is akin to the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the constitution of India in service matters. This is evident from a perusal of Article 323-A of the constitution. The constraints and norms which the High Court observes while exercising the said jurisdiction apply equally to the Tribunal created under Article 323-A. (We find it all the more surprising that the learned Single Member who passed the impugned order is a former Judge of the High Court and is thus aware of the norms and constraints of the writ jurisdiction.) The Administrative Tribunal is not an Appellate Authority sitting in judgment over the orders of transfer. It cannot substitute its own judgment for that of the authority competent to transfer. In this case the Tribunal has clearly exceeded its jurisdiction in interfering with the order of transfer. The order of the Tribunal reads as if it were sitting in appeal over the order of transfer made by the Senior Administrative Officer (competent authority).
9. ................
10. The said observations in fact tend to negative the respondent's contentions instead of supporting them. The judgment also does not support the Respondents' contention that if such an order is questioned in a Court or the Tribunal, the authority is obliged to justify the transfer by adducing the reasons therefor. It does not also say that the Court or the Tribunal can quash the order of transfer, if any of the administrative instructions/guidelines are not followed, much less can it be characterized as malafide for that reason. To reiterate, the order of transfer can be questioned in a court or Tribunal only where it is passed malafide or where it is made in violation of the statutory provisions."9 OANo.3099/2023
(iii) In the case of State of M.P. and Another Vs. S.S. Kourav and Others,(1995) 3 SCC 270, wherein, it is held in para 6 that:-
"6. It is further contended that in an unfortunate situation the respondent's wife committed suicide leaving three children and he would suffer extreme hardship if has to work in the tribal area. This court cannot go into that question of relative hardship. It would be for the administration to consider the facts of a given case and mitigate the real hardship in the interest of good and efficient administrator. If there is any such hardship, it would be open to the respondent to make a representation to the Government and it is for the Government to consider and take appropriate decision in that behalf."
(iv) In the case of National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. Vs. Shri Bhagwan, Appeal (Civil) 1095- 1096 of 2001, wherein, it is held by the Apex Court that:-
"Heard Shri B. Datta, learned senior Advocate for the appellant- Corporation and Shri Jitendra Sharma, learned senior Advocate, for the respondent-employees. It was urged for the appellant- Corporation that transfer being an incident of service, no exception could be taken to the impugned orders of transfer, which came to be made according to the appellant in accordance with law and in public interest, particularly in the absence of any proof of malafides or contravention of any specific prohibitory provision in this regard, rendering the employees immune from such transfers. Rule 4.1.1 of the Seniority Rules was, according to the appellant, misconstrued completely giving a go-bye to R 5-14 of the Recruitment Rules and a proper construction of the same would really support the stand of the Corporation to justify the transfers in the case on hand. The assumption made by the High Court on the alleged grievance of loss of seniority is said to be unwarranted having regard to the fact that the Projects to which the respondents were transferred being new, no such grievance could have been countenanced. It was also urged that the Government of India, from time to time, assigned new Projects to the Corporation for being executed and implemented and the above transfers become absolutely necessary for undertaking such new Projects in order to adjust the staff from various Projects or Corporate Offices where they were either not required or found to be surplus and so far as the case on hand is concerned, staff from the lowest level, namely, Class-IV, to the level of General Managers have been transferred, offering a package deal under which they were permitted to not only keep their families at the previous place of posting or any place of their choice in India entitling them to House Rent Allowance of that Station, but also giving them in addition, special House Rent Allowance of ten per cent of presently drawn basic pay, giving them, at the same time, temporary accommodation at the project site free of cost, besides granting them other benefits like site compensatory allowance, monthly ad hoc monetary assistance, 10 OANo.3099/2023 free transport of essential commodities to the site and mess facilities, etc. More than one and a half times the insurance coverage that they would have got in the previous place of posting also become due to them for which the premium is said to be borne by the Corporation, in addition to the travel facilities to the members of the family.
..............
On a careful consideration of the submissions of the learned counsel on either side and the relevant rules to which our attention has been invited to, we are of the view that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the impugned orders of transfer. It is by now well-settled and often reiterated by this Court that no Government servant or employee of public Undertaking has any legal right to be posted forever at any one particular place 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 malafide exercise of power or stated to be in violation of statutory provisions prohibiting any such transfer, the Courts or the Tribunals cannot interfere with such orders as a matter of routine, as though they are the Appellate Authorities substituting their own decision for that of the Management, as against such orders passed in the interest of administrative exigencies of the service concerned. On the facts and circumstances of the cases before us, we are also unable to agree with the learned counsel for the respondents that Rule 4.1.1 of the Seniority Rules interdicts any transfer of the employees from one Office or Project or Unit to any one of the other as long as the seniority of such an employee is protected based on the length of service with reference to the date of promotion or appointment to the grade concerned irrespective of the date of transfer. We also consider it to be a mere submission in vain, the one urged on the basis of alleged adverse consequences detrimental to their seniority resulting from such transfer. In the facts of the present cases, at any rate, no such result is bound to occur since the project undertaken to which the respondents have been transferred is itself a new one and, therefore, we see no rhyme or reason in the alleged grievance."
(v) In the case of State of U.P. And Ors. Vs. Gobardhan Lal, 2004-(003) CLR-0078-SC, wherein, it has been held that:-
"It is too late in the day for any Government Servant to contend that once appointed or posted in a particular place or position, he should continue in such place or position as long as he desires. Transfer of an employee is not only an incident inherent in the terms of appointment but also implicit [sic] as an essential condition of service in the absence of any specific indication to the contra, in the law governing or conditions of service. Unless the order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of a mala fide exercise of power or violative of any statutory provision (an Act or Rule) or passed by an authority not competent to do so, an order of transfer cannot lightly be interfered with as a matter of course or routine for any or every type of grievance sought to be 11 OANo.3099/2023 made. Even administrative guidelines for regulating transfers or containing transfer policies at best may afford an opportunity to the officer or servant concerned to approach their higher authorities for redress but cannot have the consequence of depriving or denying the competent authority to transfer a particular officer/servant to any place in public interest and as is found necessitated by exigencies of service as long as the official status is not affected adversely and there is no infraction of any career prospects such as seniority, scale of pay and secured emoluments. This Court has often reiterated that the order of transfer made even in transgression of administrative guidelines cannot also be interfered with, as they do not confer any legally enforceable rights, unless, as noticed supra, shown to be vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any statutory provision. 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."
(vi) In the case of State of U.P. And Anr. Vs. Siya Ram And Anr., in Appeal (Civil) 5005/2004 dated 05.08.2004, wherein, it has been held that:-
"The High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the 'Constitution') had gone into the question as to whether the transfer was in the interest of public service. That would essentially require factual adjudication and invariably depend upon peculiar facts and circumstances of the case concerned. 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, as against such orders passed in the interest of administrative exigencies of the service concerned. This position was highlighted by this Court in National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. v. Shri Bhagwan and Anr. (2001 (8) SCC 574)."12 OANo.3099/2023
(vii) In the matter of Major General J.K. Bansal Vs. Union of India and others, Appeal (Civil) 5189/2005 decided on 23.08.2005, wherein, it has been held in para 9 and 10 are as follows:
"9. In Mrs. Shilpi Bose and others vs. State of Bihar and others AIR 1991 SC 532, the appellants, who were lady teachers in primary schools, were transferred on their requests to places where their husbands were posted. The contesting respondents, who were displaced by the appellants, challenged the validity of the transfer orders before the High Court by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, which was allowed and the transfer orders were quashed. This Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court by observing as under: -
"In our opinion, the courts should not interfere with a transfer order which are made in public interest and for administrative reasons unless the transfer orders are made 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..................................."
10. In Union of India and others vs. S.L. Abbas AIR 1993 SC 2444, the respondent was working at Shillong in the office of Botanical Survey of India and his wife was also working there in a Central Government office. He was transferred from Shillong to Pauri in the hills of U.P. (now in Uttaranchal). He challenged the transfer order before the Central Administrative Tribunal on medical ground and also on the ground of violation of guidelines contained in the Government of India OM dated 3.4.1986. The Tribunal allowed the petition and quashed the transfer order. In appeal this Court set aside the order of the Tribunal and observed as under: -
"Who should be transferred where, is a matter for the appropriate authority to decide. Unless the order of transfer is vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any statutory provisions, the Court cannot interfere with it. While ordering the transfer, there is no doubt, the authority must keep in mind the guidelines issued by the Government on the subject. Similarly if a person makes any representation with respect to his transfer, the appropriate authority must consider the same having regard to the exigencies of administration. The guidelines say that as far as possible, husband and wife must be posted at the same place. The said guideline however does 13 OANo.3099/2023 not confer upon the Government employee a legally enforceable right."
(viii) In the decision of Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench in the case of Shri G. Nageshwara Rao S/o G.S..... Vs. The Govt. of India Rep. decided on 22.08.2007, it has been held in para 8 that: -
"8. From the above cited decisions, it is clear that the Court or Tribunal cannot interfere with the orders of transfer unless the transfer order is passed by incompetent authority or the transfer is malafide or it is against the statutory rules. It is also clear that the burden is on the employee to prove malafides or violation of statutory rules or incompetency of authority to pass transfer orders. So, it has to be seen whether in the instant case the applicant has proved either malafide or violation of statutory rules or incompetency of the authority who issued transfer orders. The transfer orders dated 25.5.2007 is filed along with the application as Annexure R-1, the transfer order is passed by Director of Administration with the approval of the competent authority to transfer the applicant from Hyderabad to Kolkata. It is not pleaded in the application that the authority who passed transfer order is incompetent to pass the transfer order. It is also not pleaded in the application that the said transfer order is in violation of any statutory rules or provisions. It is not disputed that the post of Drugs Inspector is a transferable post all over India. In the application, it is stated that there is no specific policy regarding transfers in existence in the office of the respondents. Therefore, it is not the case of the applicant that the impugned transfer order is made in violation of any statutory rules or any policy guidelines. The applicant pleaded that the respondents have chosen pick and choose policy while transferring the applicant by making a Drugs Inspector who is junior to him in charge of Deputy Drugs Controller. Admittedly, the applicant has been working for more than six years at Hyderabad but his case is that there are several others who have been serving for more than 20 years or 30 years without transfer and therefore, his transfer is unjust. That is not a ground to interfere with the transfer order. As long as the authority who issued transfer order is the competent authority to order transfer, the Court cannot interfere with such order unless the malafides are proved. Here, in the instant case, no malafides have been attributed to the authority who issued transfer orders. The pleadings are very vague. It is simply stated that in the rejoinder filed in OA 419/2006 he made certain allegations against certain persons and that the transfer orders were issued at the behest of those persons. The applicant did not name those persons nor did he implead them as parties. In the absence of the details of those persons and also the nature of the allegations made against such persons, it cannot be said that the impugned transfer orders are issued with malafide intention. Malafides are to be pleaded specifically and are to be proved. But in the instant case, the allegations made are very vague. It is true that as the applicant was denied promotion, he challenged the action of the respondents for not promoting him by way of filing OA 419/2006. Merely because he filed an application before this Tribunal challenging the action of the respondents in not giving promotion, it cannot be said 14 OANo.3099/2023 that it is the reason for the competent authority to issue transfer order. I am unable to hold that the said admitted fact of the pendency of the OA 419/2006 is sufficient to attribute the malafides to the competent authority who issued transfer orders. Hence, in my considered view, the applicant has failed to prove the malafides alleged in the application. Hence, this Tribunal has no power to interfere with the transfer orders. However, as this Tribunal passed an interim order on 11.7.2007, to maintain status quo and as the relieving order is not yet served on the applicant and that the applicant in his letter dated 18.6.2007, stated that he is not a position to leave Hyderabad for some time as his mother cannot be moved for a minimum period of three months. I consider it expedient to grant 15 daystime from this day for the applicant to move from Hyderabad to Kolkata. The period of absence of the applicant from duty from 6.6.2007 shall be regularised treating it as leave available to the applicant. The joining time shall be reckoned after the expiry of 15 days from this day."
11. To seek cancellation/modification of her transfer, the applicant has stated that the transfer policy is illegal. Further, choice of stations given by her has not been considered and pick and choose policy has been adopted by the respondents while issuing the transfer order. A representation dated 18.08.2023 to cancel or modify the transfer order was submitted by the applicant on domestic grounds that her children being small, require constant care and attention of the applicant and that the husband of the applicant is working in a private enterprise which is not transferable. I am of the considered view that in view of law laid down in above mentioned judgments by the Hon'ble Courts the above mentioned grounds are not tenable grounds to interfere in the transfer order of the applicant.
15OANo.3099/2023
12. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties, the OA is disposed of with following directions:
a) The applicant is directed to submit a representation to the respondents with three options for posting alongwith details of the place of posting of her spouse and any other compelling circumstances requiring her presence at Delhi within ten days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order.
b) The respondents shall consider the representation of the applicant taking a holistic view in the matter in light of priority matrix on humanitarian grounds as the husband of the applicant is working in a job which is not a transferable job. The respondents shall pass a reasoned and speaking order within five weeks from the date of receipt of the representation of the applicant.
c) There shall be no order as to costs.
d) Pending MAs, if any, stand closed.
(Rajinder Kashyap) Member (A) /ks/