Transfer orders can only be challenged if issued with mala fides or in violation of statutory provisions; compliance with transfer policy is essential.

ORDER

By way of the present O.A., the applicant seeks the following relief:

i. That the Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order of quashing the impugned order dt. 14.6.2023 (Annex.A/1) in respect of applicant, declaring to the effect that the same are illegal, arbitrary and against the transfer policy and consequently pass an order allowing the applicant to serve at the same /present station as per transfer policy.

ii. That the Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order directing the respondents to accommodate the applicant to the nearby stations, in case it is not possible to accommodate the applicant at the same station for any reason justify reason as per policy.

iii. Any other relief which the Hon’ble Tribunal deem fit and proper may also be granted to the applicants along with the costs of litigation.

BRIEF FACTS:

The applicant was initially appointed to the post of Civilian Switch Board Operator (CSBO) on 17.08.2011 and since her appointment she is working on the same post till date. She was initially posted in Mathura and only on 10.02.2015, she was posted in the Headquarters at New Delhi. The applicant contends that prior to 2022, there was no rotational transfer policy for Civilian Switch Board Operators and Telephone Operators and Telephone Supervisors and only vide letter dated 06.12.2022, transfer policy was introduced. In the transfer policy there is provision of submitting the posting choices before transfer. The Records Office, i.e. Respondent No.3, vide letter dated 30.03.2023 directed Respondent No.4 to forward the choice stations for transfer/posting with respect to CSBOs/Tele/SB Supervisors as per prescribed format and duly recommended by head of establishment/CSs to this HQ by 02.04.2023. The applicant contends that the letter dated 02.04.2023 was not circulated by the Respondent No. 4 immediately and same was circulated very late and directed the concerned staff to submit their choice stations within a very short time. The applicant has stated that she submitted her option in the prescribed format in the office of the respondent No. 4. She submitted her option for the following three stations namely; (i) Alwar, (ii) Jaipur and (iii) Chandigarh.

2. The applicant states that the respondents without considering the options submitted by her and other similarly situated employees passed the impugned transfer order dated 14.06.2023 by which the applicant has been ordered to be transferred from the present station i.e. New Delhi to Jodhpur. Thereafter, the applicant immediately approached the concerned authority and came to know that Respondent No. 4 had not forwarded the option form submitted by the applicant and other employees within the prescribed time and that is why the respondent No.2 passed the impugned order of transfer without taking into consideration the options submitted by the applicant. Thereafter, the applicant submitted her representation dated 18.8.2023 requesting to cancel or to modify her transfer order as per her choice/option. However, the respondents vide order dated 14.08.2023 considered only few cases for modification of transfer order.

3. The applicant states that it is a well settled principle of law that when the issue of administrative exigency is raised before the court it is mandated upon the respondents/Government to explain the exigency and the circumstances under which a deviation from the rules has been taken to transfer an employee Harpal Singh Kashyap Vs. NCT of Delhi & Ors. 2005(2) ATJ 124 .

4. The respondents in their reply contend that the formulation and implementation of Rotational Transfer Policy was circulated to all CSBOs posted at 1 Army HQ Signal Regiment vide office order No.494/ADM dated 05/04/2023 (Annexure- R/5) and all CSBOs of 1 Army HQ Signal Regiment were well informed in time about the policy before implementation through various joint Consultative Machinery (JCM) Welfare Committee Meetings, however, despite clear instructions whi