The court held that administrative transfers are valid when justified by exigencies and devoid of malafide motives, consistent with established precedents.

ORDER :

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode).

2. Heard Mr. B.S. Tripathy, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner; Mr. G.K. Nayak, learned Central Government Counsel for opposite party no.1 and Mr. Nihal Rath, learned counsel for opposite party nos.2 to 4.

3. The petitioner-Prasanta Kumar Sahoo has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 04.03.2025 of the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No. 260/00678 of 2024 in dismissing the Original Application under Annexure-11.

4. It appears that the petitioner has filed the aforesaid Original Application to quash the order dated 14.11.2024, wherein while working as Head Clerk/Assistant in ESI Corporation, Odisha Region, he has been transferred and posted to Branch Office, Jaykaypur, Rayagada on administrative exigencies with a further prayer that he is entitled to TA/DA and joining time as per rules and stood relieved from the present place of posting w.e.f. 14.11.2024.

5. After issuance of notice, the opposite parties entered appearance and filed their counter affidavit, wherein it has been stated that keeping the need of the hands of the petitioner at Branch Office, Jaykaypur, he has been posted there on administrative ground keeping in mind the transfer policy of the department. The petitioner submitted his representation, which was also considered by the competent authority but the same was rejected and the reason of rejection was duly intimated to him. The opposite parties have denied the allegation of petitioner that the transfer is actuated with any malafide exercise of power. It has been stated that though the petitioner stands relieved from his duty w.e.f. 14.11.2024, instead of joining at his new place of posting, he submitted leave application. However, taking into consideration the interim order of the Tribunal, he has been paid monthly salary on the presumption that non-payment of salary may amount to violation of interim order of the Tribunal. It is further stated that transfer being an incident of service and the petitioner having been transferred in public/administrative interest, the Original Application is liable to be dismissed.

6. The learned Tribunal, after considering the ratio laid down in the case of Shilpi Bose Vrs. State of Bihar , 1991 Sup (2) SCC 659; Gujarat Electricity Board Vrs. Atmaram Sungomal Poshani , AIR 1989 SC 1433; Union of India Vrs. H.N. Kirtania , AIR 1989 SC 1774; State Bank of India Vrs. Anjan Sanyal , AIR 2001 SC 1748 ; Addisons Paints & Chemicals Ltd. Vrs. Workman, AIR 2001 SC 436 ; State of U.P. Vrs. Gobardhan Lal , AIR 2004 SC 2165; m. Sankaranarayanan, IAS Vrs. State of Karnataka & Ors., AIR 1993 SC 763 ; SK Nausad Rahaman & Ors. Vrs. Union of India & Ors., 2022 (4) SCALE 626 and Union of India & Ors. Vrs. S.L. Abbas, (1993) 4 SCC 357 : AIR 1993 SC 2444 , came to hold that the appellant has alleged malafide against the transfer but did not produce any document in that respect that the transfer is actuated with malafide exercise of power. It was further held that when the competent authority transferred the petitioner to Branch Office, Jaykaypur, it is up to the authority concerned to allow him to continue in his transferred post after he reports to duty.

7. According to Mr. B.S. Tripathy, learned Senior Advocate, in the meantime the petitioner has joined in the new place of posting. Admittedly, not only no documents with respect to malafide have been produced before the learned Tribunal, but also the person, i.e., Regional Director, against whom the malafide has been alleged, has not been arrayed as a party to the Original Application.

8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and in view of the law laid down b