JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri Shashi Prakash Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General of India assisted by Shri Sudhanshu Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Praveen Kumar, learned counsel representing the respondent no. 2. We have also perused the records available before us on this Writ Petition.

2. These proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India lay a challenge to the judgment and order dated 04.11.2022 passed by the Lucknow Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal whereby Original Application bearing No. 332/00084/2022 has been allowed and the transfer order dated 17.02.2022 which was under challenge therein has been quashed.

3. Learned Tribunal by the order under challenge before us has also directed that the respondent no. 1-applicant shall be permitted to join at the same place of posting as immediately before the transfer order even if he has been relieved or has joined at any other place.

4. By the said order since all the miscellaneous applications have also been disposed of, resultantly Execution Application No. 332/00467/2022 filed by the respondent no. 2-applicant seeking of execution of an interim order dated 22.02.2022 has also been disposed of.

5. Shri Shashi Prakash Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General of India vehemently arguing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that the reasons given by the learned Tribunal, Lucknow while allowing the Original Application filed by the respondent no. 2-applicant are not tenable. It has further been argued by Shri Singh that the circulars which have been relied upon by the Tribunal are not statutory and hence the same cannot be said to be binding. Shri Singh further urges that so far as the circular dated 12.12.2018 issued by the Railway Board is concerned, the same is also not binding for the reason that it has not been issued under any authority under some statute and the same, being only advisory in nature, could not be made the basis of the claim laid by the respondent no. 2-applicant to challenge the transfer order. He has also stated that in case the respondent no. 2-applicant was aggrieved by his transfer within a span of two years prior to his date of retirement/superannuation, he ought to have approached the authorities concerned bringing to their notice that he is to retire within two years as such in view of the provisions contained in the circular dated 12.12.2018 he ought not be transferred. Submission further is that it is not in dispute that the respondent no. 2-applicant owes pan-India transfer liability and hence in the exigencies of administration and public interest he could be transferred and further that there is no illegality in the order of transfer.

6. On the basis of all the aforesaid submissions, it has been urged by the learned Additional Solicitor General of India that the judgment and order dated 04.11.2022 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal is thus not sustainable and hence the same is liable to be set aside.

7. Per contra, Shri Praveen Kumar, learned counsel representing the respondent no. 2-applicant has submitted that the circular dated 18.12.2018 issued by the Railway Board may not confer any right upon him to remain posted at the same place and not be transferred before two years prior to date of his retirement, however, the railway authorities have to act in accordance with the provisions made in the said circular. It has been argued that admittedly the respondent no. 2-applicant is to attain the age of superannuation on 31.12.2023 hence subjecting him to transfer within two years prior to his date of superannuation cannot be said to be justified on any count not only because such transfer is violation of the provisions contained in the circular dated 12.12.2018 but also for the reason that the same has strong traces of arbitrariness on the part of the authorities.

8. Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel representing the respective parties.

9. Before delving into the rival