Transfer orders must be based on administrative feasibility, and personal hardships do not guarantee entitlement if guidelines are appropriately followed.

JUDGMENT :

MADHURESH PRASAD, J.

1. The writ petitioner was the applicant before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Bench (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) in O.A. No. 357 of 2025. The Tribunal has dismissed the O.A. by a judgment dated 09.06.2025, which is the subject matter of the present writ proceedings.

2. The writ petitioner, a Senior Accounts Officer in the Defence Accounts Department was posted at Kolkata. She was transferred from Kolkata to Shillong by an order dated 29.11.2024. She represented seeking reconsideration of the transfer order, which was rejected by the authorities on 21.01.2025. The order was put to challenge in O.A. No. 164 of 2025, wherein the transfer order was also assailed. The O.A. was disposed of by an order dated 31.01.2025 setting aside the order dated 23.01.2025 whereby and whereunder the petitioner’s representation had been rejected, with a direction to the competent authority to reconsider the representation by a reasoned and speaking order. The Tribunal was pleased to allow the applicant to continue at her post in Kolkata till communication of decision on the representation.

3. In compliance of the Tribunal’s order the authorities passed a reasoned and speaking order dated 04.03.2025 and the applicant was relieved from her post in Kolkata thereafter on 10.03.2025.

4. These facts and circumstances has given rise to a second original application being filed by the petitioner applicant for the relief of quashing of the speaking order dated 04.03.2025 as also the relieving order dated 10.03.2025. The applicant also sought quashing of the transfer order dated 29.11.2024. The Tribunal has considered the petitioner’s grievance broadly on four grounds, as regards the transfer order:

i. Her husband is working as Lab Attendant in an institute affiliated to the State Government at Hooghly. His job is non-transferable.

ii. She has an 8-year old daughter who is pursuing her studies in Kolkata.

iii. Her aged parents are dependent on her.

iv. Her father is suffering with certain ailments namely acute coronary syndrome, chronic kidney disease, type 2 diabetes etc.

5. It was her case before the Tribunal that earlier also she was transferred from Kerala in 2013 and again she has been transferred from Kolkata to Shillong.

6. Other employees are continuing in Kolkata office since a long time, and much before the petitioner was transferred to Kolkata in 2017. They are being continued in Kolkata office but the petitioner has been transferred without considering the above noted hardships. She also claimed the transfer order to be in violation of the Department of Personnel and Trainings (DoPTs) O.M. dated 30.09.2009 and 24.11.2022. Though an option was invited from the petitioner and the petitioner had given three choices at Kolkata, Barrackpore and Kolkata, the authorities have ignored such option and proceeded to transfer her to the Civil Defence Accounts Office in Shillong. The applicant relied upon the O.M. dated 30.09.2009 and 24.11.2022, as well as guidelines dated 28.03.2014 to submit that the guidelines contained therein are in the nature of executive instructions which were required to be scrupulously followed.

7. Mr. Kallol Basu, learned Advocate for the applicant petitioner, has placed specific reliance on the General Guidelines/ transfer policy communicated to the Offices under the CGDA, on 28.03.2014. He submits that the guidelines speaks of a normal tenure of 3 years, subject to discretion to reduce the normal tenure, bu