Employee transfer policies must balance individual preferences and administrative priorities, with no absolute rights to preferred station postings.

ORDER

Applicant is an Assistant Engineer in the Central Public Works Department, CPWD for short, presently posted at Peringome in Kannur District. She was transferred to Peringome under Annexure-A2 order dated 14.10.2020 and is working there from 20.10.2020. It is a hard station. Tenure in a hard station is two years. Before issuing the impugned Annexure-A1 transfer order the respondents had issued a readiness list of transferees in which the name of the applicant was not included. It was a mistake. Pointing out the mistake the applicant gave a representation and after considering the Annexure-A6 representation Annexure-A7 addendum was issued on 22.03.2023 adding the name of the applicant in the readiness list stating that her tenure had completed in a hard area. In spite of the same, Annexure-A1 was issued transferring her to Bangalore without considering the three option stations admitted by her.

2. Her husband is a Senior Assistant Loco Pilot in Thiruvananthapuram Division of the Southern Railway, presently posted in Cochin. She has two school going children. She is entitled to be posted in Cochin on spouse ground. That consideration was also denied to her.

3. Moreover, the 6^th respondent, who is presently in Kasaragod has been granted a favourable transfer to Cochin and thus the vacancy at Cochin had been filled. The 6^th respondent has been preferred to the applicant. There is no justification in preferring the 6^th respondent ignoring the legitimate claims of the applicant to be posted in Cochin. Therefore, she has approached this Tribunal for quashing Annexure-A1 as regards the transfer of herself and the 6^th respondent and to direct the respondents to consider and post her as Assistant Engineer against the existing vacancy at Cochin.

4. According to the applicant, both the grounds urged by her in support of getting a transfer to Cochin are legitimate. The representation given by her was recommended by her immediate superiors, which was forwarded to the 2^nd respondent. Still Annexure-A1 has been passed without recognising her legitimate rights and also ignoring the standing instructions on the subject. Referring to Annexures-A12 to A14 she said that it is the accepted policy of the Union of India that spouses, as far as possible should be posted in the same station. It is the avowed principle accepted by the Government as per the recommendations of Pay Commissions. There is no reason why such recommendations and standing instructions shall not be followed in the case of the applicant. Therefore, Annexure-A1 is liable to be interfered with as regards the transfer of the applicant as well as the 6^th respondent are concerned. The 6^th respondent does not have prior right over the applicant in the matter of posting to Cochin. He had been in Kasaragod and has been given undue favouritism. Moreover, the transfer was effected without being considered by a placement committee as directed by the Hon’ble Apex Court.

5. To sum up, the case of the applicant is that even though she had completed two years service in a hard station at Peringome, she was not granted transfer to her place of choice, which is violative of the standing instructions. Her husband is an employee in the Southern Railway and is not entitled to be transferred beyond Thiruvananthapuram Division. So, under the standing instructions issued by the Government of India she is entitled to get transfer on spouse ground also. The 6^th respondent has been favoured and has been given preference over the applicant, which is illegal and therefore Annexure-A1 is sought to be interfered with.

6. The Executive Engineer, Cochin, CPWD, as the authorized officer fil