Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 2880
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Dilip Balwani – Appellant
Versus
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal – Respondent
O.A./258/2024
Mr. J.K.Lodha, Ms. R.R.Patel
Transfer orders for government employees nearing retirement can be made in public interest and administrative exigency, without violating legal rights, as per established policies.
Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Transfer order - The applicant challenged his transfer from ITAT, Ahmedabad to ITAT, Surat, citing violation of government guidelines and departmental policy regarding transfers for employees nearing retirement. The applicant argued that his transfer was arbitrary and not in line with the established transfer policy. (Paras 1-2.2)
(B) Transfer Policy - The court examined the ITAT Transfer Policy and the guidelines issued by the DoPT, concluding that the transfer was made in public interest and administrative exigency. The policy allows for transfers but does not guarantee retention at a specific location for employees nearing retirement. (Paras 3.1-5.3)
Facts of the case:
The applicant, an Office Superintendent at ITAT, Ahmedabad, was transferred to ITAT, Surat just two years before his retirement, which he claimed was arbitrary and against policy. (Paras 2-2.2)
Findings of Court:
The transfer was justified under the ITAT Transfer Policy and was not in violation of any statutory provisions. The court found no evidence of mala fides or arbitrary action in the transfer decision. (Paras 5-6)
Issues: The main issues were whether the transfer violated any guidelines for employees nearing retirement and whether the transfer was arbitrary.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the transfer was in accordance with the ITAT Transfer Policy and did not violate any legal rights of the applicant, emphasizing that transfers are a condition of service. (Paras 5.1-5.3)
Result: OA dismissed.
ORDER
Per : Hon’ble Dr.Hukum Singh Meena, Member (A)
Being aggrieved with the order No.F/300-Ad/AT/2024 dated 07.06.2024 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter, in short it is mentioned as ‘ITAT’), Mumbai whereby the applicant has been transferred as Office Superintendent from ITAT, Ahmedabad to ITAT, Surat, he has filed the present OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs :
“(a) Quash and set aside the transfer order dated 07th June, 2024 being violative of Government guidelines and Departmental transfer policy as well.
(b) Declare that the applicant is entitled be continued at Ahmedabad itself as his retiring on superannuation in May, 2026.
(c) Direct the respondent No.2 to consider the request of the applicant to retain the applicant at Ahmedabad in view of his superannuation.
(d) pass such other and further orders or direction, as may be deemed fit, just and proper in the interest of justice.”
2. The brief facts of the case are as under :
The applicant is working as the Office Superintendent at ITAT, Ahmedabad and has unblemished service record. He is more than 58 years of age and has left out less than two years for retirement on superannuation. Mr. J.K.Lodha, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the respondents have transferred the applicant from ITAT, Ahmedabad to ITAT, Surat on 07.06.2024 (Annexure A/1) in arbitrary manner and unceremoniously in spite of the fact that the applicant is due to retire on superannuation w.e.f. two years. He further submitted that the respondents authority have transferred total six Office Superintendents vide order dated 07.06.2024. However, except the applicant, other persons have been transferred according to their places of choice as per their own request. The applicant was the only Office Superintendent who had been transferred on the basis of the pick and choose manner without considering the length of his service and his personal difficulties.
2.1 He further contended that there is an in house transfer policy of ITAT wherein object of transfer of Government servant are clear i.e. to fulfill the needs of the employees nearing retirement for possible placement close of their hometown or a location of their choice. However, the transfer of the applicant is contrary to the hereinabove stated object of the policy ibid.
2.2 Subsequently, the applicant made representation against the transfer order requesting for cancellation of the above mentioned transfer order of the applicant by considering the length of service and he is due to retire within next two years. That the said representation has been rejected by the respondent No.2 vide order dated 24.06.2024 wherein it was mentioned that the applicant would be relieved of his duties from ITAT Ahmedabad w.e.f. 01.07.2024. Hence, aggrieved by the transfer order and thereafter rejection of his representation by the higher authority, he has filed the present OA.
2.3 The applicant relied on guidelines, circular issued by the DoPT vide order dated 08.04.2010 (Annexure R/3) wherein it was made clear that employees who is due to retire in next 24 months may not be transferred. He also contended that as per the Rule 56 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1965, the Government suggest to prepare in advance a list of persons who are due to retire w.e.f. next six months and 24 to 30 months. All these provisions were made/ incorporated in service rules so as to facilitate the retirement of officer/ employee peacefully and he could plan his future accordingly and it is legitimate expectation of the employees who has served the department for major part of his life. Therefore, on the basis of the above grounds and provisions, the guidelines with reference to the persons who is due to retire within next two years, he prays that the OA is allowed.
3. Per contra; Ms. R.R.Patel, learned counsel for the respondents had denied the most of the averments made by the applicant in the OA. She further submitted
