Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 94
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, J
Sh Sudhir Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Employees State Insurance Corporation (esic) – Respondent
O.A./4784/2024
Mr.Somnath Bhattacharya, Mr.Amit Chawla
A government servant has no vested right to remain at a particular posting; transfer orders are valid unless proven arbitrary or in violation of statutory provisions.
Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Transfer policy - Applicant challenged transfer from Delhi to Mumbai under the impugned transfer policy dated 20.05.2022 and subsequent orders - Tribunal upheld the transfer order, emphasizing the necessity of exhausting alternative remedies before approaching the Tribunal - The applicant's claims of arbitrary action were dismissed as the transfer was justified under public interest and administrative exigency. (Paras 1, 7, 15)
(B) Transfer Orders - Legal rights - The court reiterated that a government servant has no vested right to remain at a particular posting and must comply with transfer orders unless proven to be issued with mala fides or in violation of statutory provisions. (Paras 8, 14)
Facts of the case:
The applicant was transferred from Delhi to Mumbai as part of the Annual General Transfer for 2024, which he contested on grounds of procedural flaws and personal hardships. (Paras 2, 15)
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal directed the applicant to submit a representation to the National Litigation Committee for reconsideration of his transfer based on compassionate grounds. (Para 16)
Issues: The main issues included the validity of the transfer order and the necessity of exhausting alternative remedies before approaching the Tribunal. (Paras 6, 7)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that transfer orders are valid unless shown to be arbitrary or in violation of statutory provisions, emphasizing the importance of administrative discretion in such matters. (Paras 8, 14)
Result: The Original Application was disposed of with directions for the applicant to submit a representation to the National Litigation Committee.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. applicant's grievances (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. judicial forum misuse (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. validity of transfer orders (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. directions for representation (Para 16) |
O R D E R
By Hon’ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A): -
The applicant has filed present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act , 1985, seeking the following relief(s): -
“(i) Allow the O.A and Quash and Set aside the impugned transfer policy dated 20.05.2022.
(ii) Quash and set aside the impugned speaking order dated 27.11.2024 and Transfer Order No. 35 OF 2024 dated 03.03.2024 passed by the authority, competent,оп the Recommendation of Transfer Committee only in respects of the Applicant in which Applicant name is present at S.No. 635 and has been transferred from ESIC Delhi to ESIC Mumbai (Approximate-1500Kms) and consequently pass an order allowing the applicant to serve at the present station.
(iii) Issue an appropriate direction or order for quashing Relieving Order dated 03.12.2024 having an Office Order No. 119 OF 2024 issued by the Deputy Director only in respect of the applicant with all consequential relief.
iii) Pass any further order as this Hon'ble Tribunal seems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
2. The factual matrix of the present case is that in pursuance of transfer policy dated 20.05.2022, the applicant has been transferred from Delhi to Mumbai on 03.03.2024. Assailing the said order of transfer, the applicant approached this Tribunal by filing OA No.3938/2024 and this Tribunal was pleased to dispose of the same at the admission stage on 08.10.2024 directing the respondents to dispose of the pending representation of the applicant and his relieving order was stayed. Therefore, the respondents decided the representation and passed a speaking order on 27-11-2024 upholding the transfer order. The applicant has again approached the Tribunal.
3. It is stated by the applicant that the coordinate Benches of this Tribunal at Mumbai, Chandigarh and Calcutta were pleased to stay the impugned transfer policy as the issues raised in the matters were identical. The applicant contends that he is entitled to get similar relief. It is stated that the Competent Authority, on the recommendations of Transfer Committee, ordered Annual General Transfer for the ‘Transfer Year-2024’ vide Office Order No.35 of 2024 on 03.03.2024 in respect of the Cadre Officer/Manager of Social Security Grade II/Superintendent which includes the name of the Applicant at Serial No. 635. The Applicant, without causing further delay, had submitted grievance through online mode on the ESIC, (ERP) Portal as per the prescribed procedure.
4. The applicant states that the lacuna pointed out in the portal by the applicant or the employees of the Corporation is that the employee cannot write a grievance of more than 1000 words and are not been able to upload supporting documents to prove the genuineness of their grievances because of which the parameters or criteria on which Transfer Grievance Redressal Committee has decided the grievances of the employees, is somehow questionable. The applicant had also forwarded his representation to the Insurance Commissioner (P&A) in reference to their grievance against the transfer to the place i.e. SRO Thane.
5. The Chandigarh Bench of this Tribunal in the matter titled as ESIC Union Punjab Region through its General Secretary Amandeep Singh & Others Vs. ESIC in O.A No. 622/2024 has also granted stay relying upon the order passed by the Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal in O.A No. 477/2023. The applicant states that once transfer policy is under review by the competent authority, issuance of the transfer order on the basis of aforesaid policy is not justified.
6. In pursuance to the order of Principal Bench of this Tribunal dated 08.10.2024 passed in OA 3938/2024, the DG, ESIC has complied with the order and after considering representation dated 22.09.2024 rebutting the claim
