Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 4433
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative
Sandeep Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Original Application No. 332/00100 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri Praveen Kumar
For the Respondents: Smt. Prayagmati Gupta, Sri Rajendra Singh, Sri Abhishek
Mutual transfer agreements cannot be enforced if one party withdraws before approval, and adherence to Railway Board guidelines is essential for valid transfers.
Headnote:(A) Railway Board Guidelines - Mutual Transfers - The applicant sought to quash the transfer order dated 24.01.2025 and to accept his technical resignation to join a new post. The respondents contended that mutual transfers once approved cannot be backtracked. (Paras 2, 4.1, 6.1)
(B) Legal Force of Agreements - The court found that once a party withdraws from an agreement before it is approved, it cannot have legal force. The approval for mutual transfer was made after the applicant's withdrawal request, rendering it impermissible. (Paras 7.2, 7.3)
Facts of the case:
The applicant, working as a Workshop Assistant, applied for mutual transfer and later requested cancellation to join as a Goods Guard. The respondents issued a transfer order despite the cancellation request.
Findings of Court:
The transfer order was quashed, and the respondents were directed to accept the applicant's resignation for the new position.
Issues: The main issues were the validity of the mutual transfer after the applicant's withdrawal and the adherence to Railway Board guidelines.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the approval of mutual transfer after the cancellation request was impermissible, emphasizing the importance of adhering to timelines and procedures outlined by the Railway Board.
Result: The transfer order was quashed, and the applicant was to be relieved to join the new post.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts of the applicant's transfer and resignation. (Para 2) |
| 2. arguments regarding mutual transfer and resignation. (Para 3) |
ORDER (ORAL)
By Hon’ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative
In this case, the applicant seeks the following reliefs:-
“1. To quash the impugned transfer order dated 24.01.2025, (contained as Annexure No. 1 to this OA), with all consequential benefits.
2. To pass orders accepting technical resignation as submitted by the applicant to take up new employment and to participate in the process of joining as Goods Guard at NCR/Prayagraj.
3. Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit, just and proper under the circumstances of the case, may also be passed.
4. Cost of the present case.”
2. The facts of the case are that the applicant, working on the post of Workshop Assistant under respondents no. 1 to 3, submitted application dated 28.05.2024 for mutual transfer with respondent no. 5 who is working under respondent no. 4. Separately, the applicant applied in response to notification no. CEN/01/2019 issued by the Railway Recruitment Board (RRB), Allahabad and was permitted by respondent no. 3 vide order dated 24.09.2024 to appear for document verification and medical examination. The applicant then applied for cancellation of mutual transfer on 26.09.2024. Having been offered appointment to the post of Goods Guard by North Central Railways, Prayagraj vide order dated 06.12.2024, the applicant represented on 21.12.2024 followed by reminders for acceptance of his technical resignation and for relieving him to join the new post. However, the respondents no. 2 & 3 issued order dated 24.01.2025 directing the applicant to join under respondent no. 4 on mutual transfer. Aggrieved, the applicant has preferred this OA.
3. The applicant contends that the respondent no. 3, having permitted the applicant to undergo document verification and medical examination for the posts advertised under the North Central Railway, should have allowed his request for cancellation of mutual transfer and acceptance of his technical resignation to join the post of Goods Guard which has been offered to him, instead of directing him to join under respondent no. 4 on mutual transfer vide the impugned order dated 24.01.2025.
4.1 The respondents no. 1 to 4, on the other hand, state that the Modern Coach Factory (MCF), where the applicant is working, is located in a remote area and faces shortage of staff. The Railway Board, however, permits mutual transfer as per the guidelines issued vide letter dated 10.02.2017. It is further stated that once a mutual transfer is agreed upon by both units, no backtracking is permissible in terms of Railway Board’s letter dated 21.04.2006. It is contended that the applicant himself applied for mutual transfer with Shri Abhishek (respondent no. 5) on 28.05.2024, which was approved by respondent no. 4 on 04.08.2024 and forwarded to MCF on 13.09.2024, where it was approved on 27.09.2024 and the order drafted on 09.10.2024. It is further stated that the applicant did not inform the respondents before applying in response to notification no. CEN/01/2019, but later requested on 16.09.2024 for issue of No Objection Certificate (NOC, hereafter) for document verification and medical examination and the NOC was issued on 24.09.2024. It is averred that the application for mutual transfer was approved on 27.09.2024, i.e., before the issuance of the offer of appointment dated 06.12.2024. Therefore, the competent authority decided that the applicant should be released on mutual transfer. It is further contended that the applicant should first join on mutual transfer under respondent no. 4 so that the right of the other mutual transferee (respondent no. 5) is not affected and that, thereafter, the applicant should apply for technical resignation to respondent no. 4.
4.2 Respondent no. 5 submits that his joining on mutual transfer was delayed due to preparations for Mahakumbh and that he should not be
