23^rd July, 2025 In the High Court at Calcutta Item no. DL 9 Court No. 4 Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Asraf, A.R.(Ct.) Appellate Side Case No. WP.CT 139 of 2025 In the matter of :

SANTANU MAHAPATRA …. Petitioner VS.

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

….Respondents For the Petitioner :

Mr. Mahadeb Ghosh Mr. Pritam Ghosh ….Advocates For the Respondents : Mr. Ranjan Kr. Sinha Mr. Arun Bandyopadhyay ….Advocates

1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner /

applicant and the learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The petitioner was posted as a Station Master at Akra in Sealdah Division, and was transferred on 08.03.2024 to Malda Division. The petitioner has made a representation against such transfer on 11.03.2024. In his representation, the petitioner / applicant has stated that he was not shown the requisite authorization issued by the DRM the transfer being from one Division to other. He has also claimed that since there is vacancy at his Division in Sealdah, having regard to his inconvenience in view of his ailing parents, he should have been spared in the Sealdah Division. In his representation he has alleged that his transfer is based on extraneous consideration. Apart from making a vague assertion, there is no material to substantiate any allegation, much less prove that the order of transfer is vitiated by mala fide or bias.

3. The learned advocate for the petitioner / applicant submits that the transfer from one Division to other could not have been effected by approval of DRM/SDAH, as has been done in the case of a petitioner, which is apparent from transfer order dated 08.03.2024.

4. The respondents on the other hand in their reply have placed on record the relevant provision relying on which they sustained the competence of the DRM to issue the transfer order having regard to administrative exigency of service. They have taken a specific stand that no material whatsoever was produced to substantiate the allegation of their being any element of bias or mala fide. It is submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that such allegation has been made to somehow overcome the transfer. It is submitted that the petitioner’s service carries a transfer liability and the law is clear that in such a circumstance the transfer being an incident of service, there is no vested right in any employee to claim to continue at a particular place of posting. Insofar as alleged incompetence of the DRM, they have place reliance of Model Schedule of Power wherein clause 3 reads:

“

”

5. Referring to the same, it is submitted that the full power was vested in the DRM for transfer of the petitioner who was admittedly a non-gazetted employee.

6. It is submitted that such power to transfer was available for a period of up to one year, only when it was without the financial concurrence. The transfer order in question, however, reads as follows:

“On approval of the Competent Authority (DRM/SDAH) with finance concurrence Sri Santanu Mahapatra, SM/AQR/SDAH Divn E. Rly. In Level – 6, who was ordered transfer alongwith post to Malda Division /E. Rly. on Administrative interest for the period of 05 years, has been released from SS/AQR vide letter No. SS/ARKA/Spare/iii/01/24 Dated- 07.03.2024 (AN) and reported to this office/divn. on 08.03.2024 is hereby released finally to MLDT Division /E. Rly as “SM” in Level -6 and directed to report DRM/MLDT Division /E. Rly immediately.”

7. The respondents submits that from a bare perusal of the transfer order it appears that the transfer was “with finance concurrence” and therefore the order is sought to be sustained.

8. We are in agreement that arguments advanced on behalf of the respondents / Railways.

9. On consideration of the submission and the material relied upon, we find that the petitioner has not been able to make out a case for assailing the transfer order within the limited scope for challenging a transfer order, such as the order being actuated by mala fide or in violation of a statutory provision.

10. It is trite that