Central Administrative Tribunal - Gauhati
Shailesh Kumar Mehta vs Principal Accountant General (A&E) ... on 30 January, 2026
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
GUWAHATI BENCH
[Reserved]
Original Application No. 042/53/2020
Reserved on: 19.01.2026
Date of Pronouncement: 30.01.2026
HON'BLE MR. SANJIV KUMAR, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Between
1. Shailesh Kumar Mehta,
S/o Shankar Prasad Mehta,
Presently working as Data Entry Operator Grade-A,
O/o the Principal Accountant General(A&E),
Manipur, Imphal,
P.O. - Imphal,
Pin - 795001.
2. Avinash Kumar,
S/o Suresh Prasad,
Presently working as Data Entry Operator Grade -A,
O/o the Principal Accountant General(A&E),
Manipur, Imphal,
P.O.-Imphal,
Pin - 795001.
3. Chandan Kumar,
S/o Mahesh Prasad Singh,
Presently working as Data Entry Operator Grade -B,
O/o the Principal Accountant General(A&E),
Manipur, Imphal
P.O- Imphal,
PIN-795001.
4. Rohit
S/o Ramniwas
Presently working as Data Entry Operator Grade - A
O/o the Principal Accountant General (A&E)
Manipur -Imphal
Pin-795001.
Reason: I am the author of this
O.A.No.042/53/2020
SOURABH document
Location:
KUMAR Date: 2026.02.05 11:10:13+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
2
5. Pawan Prasad
S/o Ashok Kumar Rajak
Presently working as Data Entry Operator Grade - A
O/o the Principal Accountant General (A&E)
Manipur-Imphal
Pin - 795001.
6. Abhinav Chandra
S/o Ram ShankerJha
Presently working as Data Entry Operator Grade-A,
O/o the Principal Accountant General (Audit),
Manipur, Imphal
P.O.- Imphal,
PIN-795001.
7. Santosh Kumar
S/o Bhupendra Prasad Srivastava
Presently working as Data Entry Operator Grade-B,
O/o the Principal Accountant General (Audit),
Manipur, Imphal
P.O- Imphal,
PIN-795001
8. Manoj Kumar Sudhanshu
S/o Laxmi Prasad Yadav
Presently working as Data Entry Operator Grade-A,
O/o the Principal Accountant General (Audit),
Manipur, Imphal
P.O- Imphal,
PIN-795001.
9. Sanjeev Kumar
S/o Bhoopal Singh
Presently working as Stenographer Grade - II,
O/o the Principal Accountant General (Audit),
Manipur, Imphal
P.O- Imphal,
PIN-795001
10. Sachin
S/o Suresh
Presently working as Data Entry Operator Grade - A
Reason: I am the author of this
O.A.No.042/53/2020
SOURABH document
Location:
KUMAR Date: 2026.02.05 11:10:13+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
3
O/o the Principal Accountant General (Audit)
Manipur - Imphal
Pin - 795001.
11. NingombamShasikanta Singh
S/o NingombamDevendro Singh
Presently working as Sr. Auditor,
O/o the Principal Accountant General (Audit)
Manipur - Imphal
Pin-795001
12. Abdul ShahidKhuleibam
S/o A. SattarKhuleibam
Presently working as Sr. Auditor,
O/o the Principal Accountant General (Audit)
Manipur - Imphal
Pin-795001.
13. Pankaj Kumar Pathak
S/o Ashok Kumar Pathak
Presently working as Assistant Accounts Officer
O/o the Principal Accountant General
Arunachal Pradesh - Itanagar
Pin-791111.
14. Suresh Kumar Sahu
S/o Kishore Chandra Sahu
Presently working as Assistant Audit Officer
O/o the Principal Accountant General
Arunachal Pradesh - Itanagar
Pin-791111.
-Versus-
1. Union of India,
Represented by the Comptroller & Auditor General of India
9, DeenDayalUpadhyaya Marg,
New Delhi-110124
2. Asst. Comptroller and Auditor General (N)
Office of the Comptroller and auditor General of India
9, DeenDayalUpadhyaya Marg,
Reason: I am the author of this
O.A.No.042/53/2020
SOURABH document
Location:
KUMAR Date: 2026.02.05 11:10:13+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
4
New Delhi-110124
3. Principal Accountant General (A&E)
Babupara, P.S. - Imphal West
Imphal West District,
Manipur, Imphal - 795001
4. Principal Accountant General (Audit)
Babupara, P.S. Imphal West
Imphal West District,
Manipur, Imphal - 795001
5. Principal Accountant General
JNK Building, 'E' Sector, NH - 52-A
Arunachal Pradesh - Itanagar
Pin-791111.
....... Respondents
Advocate for applicant: Sri M. Chanda, Smt. U. Dutta
Advocate for respondent(s): Sri V.K. Bhatra, Sr. CGSC
ORDER
PER MR. SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A):
The applicants are presently serving as Data Entry Operator Grade - A, Data Entry Operator Grade B, Sr. Auditor, Stenographer Grade II, Assistant Accounts Officer as well as Assistant Audit Officer in the establishment of the Principal Accountant General (A&E) and Principal Accountant General (Audit), Manipur, Imphal and in the establishment of the Principal Accountant General, Arunachal Pradesh,Itanagar. All Reason: I am the author of this O.A.No.042/53/2020 SOURABH document Location:
KUMAR Date: 2026.02.05 11:10:13+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 5 the applicants had joined on different dates in their respective cadres after being declared successful in the relevant competitive examination conducted by Staff Selection Commission.Most of the applicants are permanent residents of different states, outside North Eastern Region, however, some of the applicants are residents of North-Eastern Region.
This application is made against the impugned Letter dated 18.12.2019(Annexure-A/1), whereby the representations made by the applicants for consideration of one time transfer opportunity in offices located in their home states or nearby their home states/Choice station,have been rejected and this application is also made against the impugned consequential letter dated 06.01.2020(Annexure-A/2),with a prayer for a direction upon the respondents for extension of benefit of rotational transfer/choice station posting on completion of fixed tenure in North-Eastern Region in the light of Govt. of India's, Ministry of Finance- O.Ms dated 14.12.1983(Annexure-A/4), 22.07.1998. The Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India(CAG), New Delhi, vide Letter dated 26.11.2019 has extended benefit of choice station posting/rotational posting to the similarly situated employees working in the Rajbhasha Cadre Reason: I am the author of this O.A.No.042/53/2020 SOURABH document Location:
KUMAR Date: 2026.02.05 11:10:13+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 6 in the event of their posting in the Offices of the Principal Accountant General, North Eastern Region.
2. The applicants have stated that the Office of the Comptroller & Auditor General of India(CAG), New Delhi vide O.M. dated 08.01.2014 provided the benefit of tenure posting in North East region to Grade -'A' officers only and the same has been denied to the present applicants in a most arbitrary and illegal manner without having any valid reason. It is specifically stated that all the present applicants are saddled with all India transfer liability as per terms and conditions laid down in the Offer of Appointment letters of the individual applicants. It is further stated that no restriction is made in the matter of extension of benefit of choice station posting in terms of Govt. of India's O.M.s dated 14.12.1983, 29.08.2008, 02.04.2013, 24.04.2014 in respect of Civilian Central Govt. employees, who are saddled with all India transfer liability either in the cadre of Group - 'A', 'B' or 'C'. In view of the provision laid down in the O.M. dated 14.12.1983 giving incentives for serving in remote areas as well as in the other subsequent Office Memorandums, the present applicants have acquired legal rights for choice station posting on completion of the fixed tenure. Such discrimination in the Reason: I am the author of this O.A.No.042/53/2020 SOURABH document Location:
KUMAR Date: 2026.02.05 11:10:13+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 7 matter of transfer and postings, more so in rotational transfer, compassionate transfer and postings on spouse ground and denial of which amounts to violation of article 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
3. But surprisingly, similar benefit of choice station posting has been denied to the present applicants who are also similarly situated like those incumbents working in the Rajbhasha Cadre and the applicants are treated with hostile discrimination which cannot be sustained in the eye of law and are in violation of principle laid down in article 14 of the Constitution. As such, Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to pass necessary direction upon the respondents for extension of benefits of rotational transfer/choice station posting/spouse posting/posting on compassionate ground as extended to the incumbent working in the Rajbhasha Cadre in the light of the Circular/Letter dated 26.11.2019 with immediate effect.
4. That it is stated that the applicants namely Shri Abhinav Chandra, DEO Grade A, Shri N. Shasikanta Singh Sr. Auditor and Shri Abdul ShahidKhuleibam appeared at Sl.Nos. 6, 11 and 12 respectively also applied for transfer and posting on the ground of Spouse posting which has not been considered as Reason: I am the author of this O.A.No.042/53/2020 SOURABH document Location:
KUMAR Date: 2026.02.05 11:10:13+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 8 transfer and posting on spouse ground ignoring the statutory guidelines for posting of husband and wife on the same station or nearby station provided in the Government of India Office Memorandum bearing letter No. F.No.28034/9/2009-Estt. (A) dated 30.09.2009.
5. The applicants have stated that in view of the mandatory provision laid down in statutory Office Memorandum dated 30.09.2009, it is obligatory on the part of the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India, New Delhi to make relevant provision in transfer and posting policy in the light of the Govt. of India's O.M. dated 30.09.2009. However, two out of three applicants are presently serving on deputation in the Office of the Principal Accountant General (Audit) in their respective states where wife of the applicants are posted. But the respondents have denied regular transfer and posting in spite of the repeated approach by the aforesaid applicants in the respective places where wife of the applicants are serving, without any valid reason. However applicant No. 6 namely Shri AbhinavChandra, DEO 'A' is a regular employee serving in the Office of the Principal Accountant General (Audit) has not been allowed transfer and posting on spouse ground till date, when Reason: I am the author of this O.A.No.042/53/2020 SOURABH document Location:
KUMAR Date: 2026.02.05 11:10:13+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 9 the wife of the said applicant is serving under the Govt. of Bihar.
So far applicant No. 11 namely Shri N. Shasikanta Singh, Sr. Auditor and applicant No. 12 namely Shri Abdul Shahid Khulelbam, Sr. Auditor are serving in the office of the Principal Accountant General (Audit) on deputation basis since they are regular auditor belonging to the establishment of Principal Accountant General, Mizoram but they have been denied regular transfer and posting in the state of Manipur in the establishment of Principal Accountant General (Audit) without any valid reasons ignoring and overlooking the statutory provision laid down in the Govt. of India Office Memorandum dated 30.09.2009.
The representations of the applicants on spouse ground have been rejected in the light of the Communication dated 18.12.2019 as well as Communication dated 06.01.2020.
6. The Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India(CAG), New Delhi vide letter bearing No. 174-staff (app- II)/64-2014/vol.IV dated 11.02.2015 issued circular that officials of IA&AD for transfer on spouse grounds is not possible in the absence of unilateral scheme for transfer and officers may be sent on deputation which will not be treated as in public interest. Reason: I am the author of this O.A.No.042/53/2020 SOURABH document Location:
KUMAR Date: 2026.02.05 11:10:13+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 10 It is rather obligatory on the face of the statutory instructions contained in the Govt. of India's OM dated 30.09.2009 for posting of the husband and wife in the same station, especially on spouse ground as well as on compassionate ground and also obligatory on the part of the respondents to provide choice station posting on completion of fixed tenure in North Eastern Region in the light of the Govt. of India's OM dated 14.12.1983 and other subsequent OMs issued by the Govt of India, Ministry of Finance, more so, when such benefit of choice posting has been provided to the officers of the Respondent department serving in the cadre of Group-A except Senior Audit and Accounts Officers as indicated in the circular no. 61-Staff (App-
II)/2019 No. 1436-Staff (App-II)/67-2019/Vol.IX dated 30.12.2019. As such, decision of the respondents is highly arbitrary, illegal and opposed to the decision of Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance contained in the OM dated 14.12.1983.
Therefore, applicants have prayed for a direction upon the respondents to provide benefit of Choice Station Posting, compassionate posting, rotational transfer, and posting on spouse ground on the basis of the set norms laid down in Govt. Reason: I am the author of this O.A.No.042/53/2020 SOURABH document Location:
KUMAR Date: 2026.02.05 11:10:13+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 11 of India's OM dated 14.12.1983 as well as Govt. of India's OM dated 30.09.2009.
7. Per contra, respondents have also filed their reply, wherein they have categorically averred as follows:
1. The request of the applicants for unilateral transfer to their home states was turned down as unilateral transfers are banned in the department vide CAG's circular no. 24-NGE/97 issued vide letter no. 1005-N(app)/24-97 dated 27.08.1997. Further prayer for extension of benefit of rotational transfer/ choice station posting on completion of fixed tenure in NE Region in light of MoF OMs dated 14.12.1983, 22.07.1998 cannot be extended to the applicants as the posts held by them are not tenure posts and they are not liable for transfer to other offices.
2. The Rajbhasha cadre has been changed from a localized cadre to All India cadre and hence they have All India transfer liability.
Their transfer policy on rotation basis i.e A&B region to C and from C to A&B after a fixed tenure is based on requirements of this cadre in various offices and for consideration of their choice posting after serving in NE, J&K and Andaman and Nicobar is based on central government instructions in this regard for officials having All India Transfer liability.
3. That the condition of transfer liability included in their appointment order of DEO Grade A and B, and, AAO which are local cadres. is standard condition for almost all central government posts. The said condition is included for administrative convenience on account of creation of new offices under IA&AD in future or due to some other administrative exigencies, there may be occasion wherein staff is required to be posted in the new offices/ other offices. Said condition cannot be interpreted to mean that applicants are required to be posted to other offices compulsorily or that they have All India Transfer liability.
4. Respondents have stated that employees are allowed mutual transfer, subject to fulfillment of conditions laid down therein (Circular No. 16 Staff Wing/2013 of Letter No.885 Staff(App-II)/64-2012/Vol.IV dated 06.06.2013) and absorption (No. 999-Staff(App-1)/04-2016/Voll dated 22.6.2016). Reason: I am the author of this O.A.No.042/53/2020 SOURABH document Location:
KUMAR Date: 2026.02.05 11:10:13+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 12
5. The Applicants cannot insist upon implementation of this transfer policy to them, since the cadre they belong to, is not an All India cadre and does not have All India Transfer liability.
6. As there is no provision of unilateral transfers in IA&AD, applicants have been allowed to serve in the offices at the station of their spouse on deputation basis. The employees are given offer for mutual transfer, deputation, absorption which includes
-spouse ground, subject to fulfillment of conditions laid in HQWH No. 10.02.2015.
7. The Respondents submit that, it is the policy matter of the Department to hold a post as a local cadre or an All India Cadre depending on its functional requirements and office follows the instructions of the C&AG of India, New Delhi as well as DoP&T guidelines with respect to transfer & posting.
8. Heard the parties, perused the records and considered the submission of both the sides.
9. The applicants in their pleadings have claimed entitlement under various Government orders for choice posting after serving a fixed tenure and alleged discrimination with Group -'A' officers and Rajbhasa Cadres. In addition, they have claimed that spouse ground posting is denied to them which are in violation of Govt. of India's O.Ms dated14.12.1983 as well as 30.09.2009.
10. Learned counsel for the applicants has annexed the following judgements in support of their contentions:
Reason: I am the author of this O.A.No.042/53/2020 SOURABH document Location:
KUMAR Date: 2026.02.05 11:10:13+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 13
(a) Judgement and Order dated 10.07.2015 delivered by coordinate Bench of this Tribunal i.e. Ernakulam Bench in case of Joseph K. John -V/s- the Commissioner of Central Excise & Ors, wherein this Tribunal had observed and directed as follows:
"38. Viewing from the aforesaid angle, we are of the opinion that protection of seniority given to employees who are transferred on grounds of 'spouse', 'compassionate' or 'physical disability' is not arbitrary decision on the part of the administration but is based on the intelligible differentia buttressed by the principles envisaged in Part IV of the Constitution which are fundamental in the governance of the country. It appears that the service rules of the respondent Department do not have specific provisions to deal with the ICTs in the instant cases. Therefore, the administrative instructions in the form of executive orders of DoPT govern the field. Such instructions have the binding force of executive orders under Article 73 of the Constitution.
39. As noted above, instructions in A/5 to A/7 were issued keeping in tune with A/8 and para 3.5 of Annexure A/6 OM of DoPT. We are of the view that Annexure A/12 instruction issued subsequently is a reiteration of Annexure A/5 to A/7 but permitting ICT with loss of seniority on other grounds, without upsetting the instructions contained in Annexure A/5 to A/7. In our view, Annexure A/12 is only clarificatory in nature in the context of a nebulous situation that prevailed in the permissibility of ICT. While stating that ICT is permissible with loss of seniority, Annexure A/12 has not at all disturbed the policy decisions contained in A/5 to A/7.
40. In the light of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the prayers of the applicants in the OAs captioned above are only to be allowed. We do so. While holding that Annexure A/5 to Α/7 and A/12 are applicable only to the Group B, C & D employees belonging to the different commissionerates under the Central Board of Excise and Customs we make it clear that this order will Reason: I am the author of this O.A.No.042/53/2020 SOURABH document Location:
KUMAR Date: 2026.02.05 11:10:13+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 14 not stand in the way of the DoPT to formulate appropriate comprehensive instructions on inter-cadre transfer that could be made applicable to all departments/formations under the Central Government."
(b) Judgement and Order dated 09.08.1991 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of RBI Vs. RBI Staff Association & Ors. reported in (1991) 4 SCC 132, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court had observed and directed as under:
"4. It is the correctness of the view taken by the High Court which is sought to be impugned before us in this appeal weaker of the opinion that the High Court was with respect, in error in taking the view that officers from the North-Eastern region who were posted at Gauhati, either on transfer or otherwise, suffered the same hardships as officers from other regions transferred to Gauhati. The hardship and inconvenience suffered by an officer of the appellant bank who was transferred to Gauhati from regions other than the North-Eastern region, would certainly be more acute than those suffered by local officers posted at Gauhati. His mother tongue might completely be different in speech and, even as far as the script is concerned, from the language used by the local people at Gauhati. He and his family members would, therefore, find it very difficult to communicate freely with the local people. His children might find it difficult to get admission to a school and pursue their education at Gauhati. They would beunfamiliar with the surroundings and the customs of the people. The hardships faced by an officer say from the Western or Southern region of India or North India posted at Gauhati would be qualitatively as well as quantitatively greater than the hardship faced by the local officers posted at Gauhati. It may be that some of the officers coming from the North-Eastern region may also face considerable hardships when posted at Gauhati but the fact that there might be a few such officers would not render the payment special allowance, exclusively to officers transferred from distant regions discriminatory and bad in law. The High Court was, therefore, not justified in coming to the conclusion that all the officers of the appellant bank posted at Gauhati suffered from the Reason: I am the author of this O.A.No.042/53/2020 SOURABH document Location:
KUMAR Date: 2026.02.05 11:10:13+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 15 same degree of hardship. A person transferred from outside the North-Eastern region to Gauhati would normally have to face more severe difficulties than an officer from the North- Eastern region posted in Gauhati or, at the least, the appellant bank could reasonably take that view. Moreover, as pointed out by the appellant bank in the counter that they were finding it difficult to persuade their officers from outside to accept transfers to Gauhati and it is common knowledge that an office of a large bank cannot be run efficiently by officers a large number of whom have been posted there by transfers against their will and under the threat of disciplinary action. The work done by them could hardly be expected to be satisfactory. After all, the appellant, the Reserve Bank of India, is a banking institution and if in the interest of efficiency and proper working it bona fide took the decision, in the circumstances set out earlier, to grant some extra benefits to the non-local officers transferred to Gauhati with a view to maintain efficient working of its unit at Gauhati, in our opinion, they cannot be treated as being guilty of any unlawful discrimination.
5. In the result, we allow the appeal and set aside the order of the High Court. The writ petition filed by respondent No. 1 is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs throughout."
(c) Judgement and Order dated 28.03.2025 passed by this Tribunal in the case of Shri ManojChourasia Vs. Union of India & Ors, wherein this Tribunal had observed and directed as follows:
"23. It is brought out by the learned counsel for respondents that as per the transfer policy of the department, the officer has to serve at least one tenure in the Head Office during his service career. The officer was already posted at the Head Office, but he was transferred to Dimapur Depot, Nagaland on his request. It was his third depot in a sequence. This was done against their own transfer policy of the organisation (against para 4 sub para 8 of the referred transfer policy). The provision under Government of India OM dated 14.12.1983 is not providing Reason: I am the author of this O.A.No.042/53/2020 SOURABH document Location:
KUMAR Date: 2026.02.05 11:10:13+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 16 absolute right to the applicant to be posted at a station of his choice. It provides for consideration of his choices in consonance with the extant transfer policy of the organisation.
24. In the case of Sarvesh Kumar Awasthi Vs U.P. Jal Nigam and Ors., reported in (2003) 11 SCC 740, Hon'ble the Apex Court has held that - "transfer of officers is required to be effected on the basis of set norms or guidelines. The power of transferring an officer cannot be wielded arbitrarily, malafide or an exercise against efficient an independent officer or at the instance of politicians whose work is not done by the officer concerned."
25. That, the applicant has served in the hard station/NE region,this will have to be considered by the respondent no.3.Thus, in the considered opinion of this tribunal,the officer has to be considered for one of the choice postings in consonance with the transfer policy of the department.
Also it has been brought to the notice to this court that the officer is currently functioning as AGM. Thus,he is eligible for posting including large/extralargedepot if the rules so permit.
26. The applicant is at liberty to submit his choices of posting as per the directions of the respondent/competent authority as per their letter dated 18.09.2023 addressed to the applicant and the respondent/ competent authority is directed to consider the options/choices of posting so given by the applicant as per their extant transfer policy/guidelines for issuing of a fresh transfer order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.Accordingly, impugned posting order dated 05.04.2024 is quashed and set aside.
27. With the above directions, the OA is disposed of. No order as to costs. Pending M.As, if any, shall also stand disposed of."
(d) Another Judgement and Order dated 31.05.2023 delivered by this Tribunal in case of Shri Utsab Deb -V/s- Union of India and Ors. in O.A. No. 257/2021, wherein this Tribunal had observed as follows:
Reason: I am the author of this O.A.No.042/53/2020 SOURABH document Location:
KUMAR Date: 2026.02.05 11:10:13+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 17 "5. From the plain reading of the above three documents it appears that as per Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961, DRDO Officers are excluded from the service conditions of the Office Memorandums and Orders issued by Department of Personnel and Training (DOP&T), Ministry of Personnel Public Grievances and Pensions. However, the Office Memorandum No.20014/3/83-E.IV dated 14.12.1983 and Office Memorandum F. No.11(2)/97-E.II(B) dated 22.07.1998 have not been issued by the Department of Personnel and Training (DOP&T), Ministry of Personnel Public Grievances and Pensions but by Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, which have an over arching and over riding influence and impact on all Government of India Ministries and Departments (including Railways, Space, DRDO etc.) Thus in our considered opinion the sum and substance of both these Office Memorandums applies to all Central Government Offices and Staff and do not qualify for exclusion specified under Clause 22 of Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961."
(e) The said OA was challenged by the respondents before the Hon'ble High Court in WP(C) No. 5537/2023 in case of Union of India Vs. Utsab Deb, which was dismissed vide Order dated 21.05.2024 with the following observation and directions:
"12. We have gone through the Office Memorandums dated 14.12.1983 and 22.07.1998 as well as the Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961. It is true that Clause 22 of the Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961 stipulates the service conditions of the Central Government employees excluding those under the control of the Department of Railways, Department of Atomic Energy, the erstwhile Department of Electronics, The Department of Space and the Scientific and Technical personnel under the Department of Defence Research & Development, other than those having a financial bearing and in so far as they raise points of general service interests. It is to be noticed Reason: I am the author of this O.A.No.042/53/2020 SOURABH document Location:
KUMAR Date: 2026.02.05 11:10:13+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 18 that the Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961 has been issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT), however, the Office Memorandum dated 14.12.1983 was issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure as per the recommendations of a Committee headed by the Secretary, Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms. The Office Memorandum dated 22.07.1998 was enforced with certain amendments in continuation with the Office Memorandum dated 14.12.1983.
13. In the said Office Memorandums, the employees of the DRDO have not been excluded and it applies to all the civilian employees of the Central Government services.
Had it been the intention of the Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms to exclude the employees of the DRDO, the Committee, on the recommendation of which the Office Memorandum dated 14.12.1983 has been issued, could have indicated the same in its recommendation. In such situation, we are of the view that the learned CAT has rightly come to the conclusion that the Office Memorandums dated 14.12.1983 and 22.07.1998 are applicable to all the Central Government Offices and the Staff and do not qualify the exclusion specified under Clause 22 of the Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961.
14. In view of the above discussions, we do not find any merit in this writ petition and hence, the same is dismissed."
11. The respondents in their pleadings have stated that cadre with regard to spouse posting, is a local cadre and there is a ban on such unilateral transfer. In addition, they have stated that being a policy matter, the CAG is within its right to determine whether the circular would be applicable to them or not and has cited the following judgements which supports their case:
Reason: I am the author of this O.A.No.042/53/2020 SOURABH document Location:
KUMAR Date: 2026.02.05 11:10:13+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 19
(a) Judgement and Order dated 18.01.1995 rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Chief General Manager(Telecom) N.E. Vs. Shri Rajendra Ch. Bhattacharjee and Ors., whereby the Hon'ble Apex had observed as follows:
"7. It is needless to emphasis that a Government employee or any servant of a Public Undertaking has no legal right to insist for being posted at any particular place. It cannot be disputed that the respondent holds a transferable post and unless specifically provided in his service conditions, he has no choice in the matter of posting. Since the respondent has no legal or statutory right to claim his posting at Agartala and, therefore, there was no justification for the tribunal to set aside the respondent's transfer to Dimapur."
(b) Another Judgement/Order dated 06.09.2021 passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of NamrataVerma Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court had observed and directed as follows:
"Heard Mr. Parvez Bashista, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent- State of U.P. It is not for the employee to insist to transfer him/her and/or not to transfer him/her at a particular place. It is for the employer to transfer an employee considering the requirement."
Respondents have stated that the transfer policy is within the authority of CAG and the same is governed by DoP&T guidelines Reason: I am the author of this O.A.No.042/53/2020 SOURABH document Location:
KUMAR Date: 2026.02.05 11:10:13+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 20 and applicants thus cannot insist upon implementation of this policy to them.
12. The respondents have placed reliance on two judgements, wherein vide Order dated 26.06.2024 passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 99/2019, it was observed that the policy to accommodate posting of spouses by means of compassionate grounds,is within the domain of the Executive.
Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of SK Nausad Rahaman & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. (2022) 12 Supreme Court Cases 1 has held as under:
"55. The circular dated 20.09.2018 has taken into account, what it describes "exceptional circumstances" such as "extreme compassionate grounds". Leaving these categories undefined, the circular allows for individual cases to be determined on their merits on a case by case basis, while prescribing that transfers on a "loan basis"
may be allowed subject to administrative requirements with a tenure of three years, extendable by a further period of two years. While proscribing ICTs which envisage absorption into a cadre of a person from a distinct cadre, the circular permits a transfer for a stipulated period on a loan basis. Whether such a provision should be suitably enhanced to specifically include cases involving
(i) postings of spouses;
(ii) disabled persons; or
(iii) compassionate transfers, is a matter which should be considered at a policy level by the Board.
56. In considering whether any modification of the policy is necessary, they must bear in mind the need for a Reason: I am the author of this O.A.No.042/53/2020 SOURABH document Location:
KUMAR Date: 2026.02.05 11:10:13+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 21 proportional relationship between the objects of the policy and the means which are adopted to implement it. The policy above all has to fulfil the test of legitimacy, suitability, necessity and of balancing the values which underlie a decision making process informed by constitutional values. 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, 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."
In another judgement delivered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Appeal No. 6717/2017 on 06.09.2021, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that - 'It is not for the employee to insist to transfer him/her and/or not to transfer him/her at a particular place. It is for the employer to transfer an employee considering the requirement.'
13. I have gone through the judgments and precedents cited by the applicant as well as the respondent in detail.
(i) In the case of Joseph K. John versus Commissioner of Central Excise, I find that it is not applicable to the facts of the present case, as the Ratio Decidendi therein was that the DoP&T Reason: I am the author of this O.A.No.042/53/2020 SOURABH document Location:
KUMAR Date: 2026.02.05 11:10:13+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 22 was asked to consider formulating an Inter-Cadre Transfer (ICT) policy.
(ii) Further, in the case of RBI Vs. RBI Staff Officers Association and Ors., the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with the grievances regarding hardships faced by the applicants, and government servants in general, essentially pertaining to compensatory allowances rather than a vested legal right to be posted at a particular place.
(iii) While the decision in Manoj Chourasia granted a choice station, it was because that employee was protected by an existing departmental policy, which is not the case here.
(iv) As regards the judgment in Utsab Deb by the Honourable High Court of Guwahati regarding similarly placed civilian employees of DRDO, it must be noted that the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) has not adopted those specific instructions in their entirety. The CAG is a Constitutional and Statutory Authority under Article 148(5) of the Constitution of India and retains the prerogative to formulate or deviate from general policy guidelines based on its unique requirements and administrative exigencies.
Reason: I am the author of this O.A.No.042/53/2020 SOURABH document Location:
KUMAR Date: 2026.02.05 11:10:13+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 23
14. The core issue for determination is whether the applicants, seeking the extension of choice station posting, spouse ground transfers, and compassionate appointments by way of a policy change in line with those applicable to other civilian employees, fall within the exclusive domain of the Executive. The applicants specifically contend that the incentives for serving in remote and North-East areas, as laid down in the Ministry of Finance O.M.s dated 14.12.1983, 29.08.2008, 02.04.2013, and 24.04.2014, should be applicable to them. They further argue that they have acquired a legal right to choice station posting on completion of their fixed tenure and that the denial of spouse ground postings violates the guidelines provided in the O.M. dated 30.09.2009.
The question to determine is whether the CAG is within its rights to deviate from the Department of Expenditure's guidelines or if such a deviation constitutes arbitrariness, which would be hit by the doctrine of equality.
15. Under the Allocation of Business Rules, it is a matter of legal debate whether DoP&T instructions apply mutatis mutandis to the CAG. While many instructions emanate from the Ministry of Finance, the CAG, as a statutory office, issues separate orders to regulate its own cadres. This Tribunal maintains a stand of Reason: I am the author of this O.A.No.042/53/2020 SOURABH document Location:
KUMAR Date: 2026.02.05 11:10:13+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 24 judicial restraint and is not inclined to issue mandatory instructions that would infringe upon the administrative autonomy of the CAG. Nevertheless, the CAG may consider adopting such beneficial policies for these employees, as they appear to be similarly placed, to ensure that employees are not deprived of additional incentives which would accrue to them if they were treated on a regular basis.
16. The settled position of law, as enunciated by the Honourable Supreme Court in S.K. Nausad Rahaman and Others versus Union of India and Others, is that the reliefs sought regarding policy modification must be left to the discretion of the Executive. Although the respondents may revisit the policy to align it with general instructions for the North-East region, this remains a policy matter and cannot be compelled through judicial intervention.
17. In view of the legal principles propounded above, it is evident that the applicants are seeking a change in policy. As the relief sought falls squarely within the domain of the Executive, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order at this stage. Reason: I am the author of this O.A.No.042/53/2020 SOURABH document Location:
KUMAR Date: 2026.02.05 11:10:13+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0 25
18. Accordingly, the Original Application is dismissed. Any interim orders previously granted, stand vacated. No order as to costs.
(SANJIV KR.) MEMBER (A) /Sk/ Reason: I am the author of this O.A.No.042/53/2020 SOURABH document Location:
KUMAR Date: 2026.02.05 11:10:13+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0