Transfer of government employees is an administrative discretion, and employees have no vested right to remain in a specific posting, especially when justified under policy provisions.

ORDER

PER:DR.SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A)

This Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985 claiming the following reliefs:

“i. CALL for relevant records relating to the impugned order bearing No. 12015/02/2024- ISS- (e-65182) Dated 29.11.2024 vide Annexure-A7 and No. 12015/02/2024-ISS- Part(1)(e-65843) Dated 30/12/2024 vide Annexure-A9 Passed by 1st Respondent, in so far as the applicant and 4th Respondent are concerned, PERSUE AND QUASH the same as being arbitrary, illegal and in violative of Article 14 & 16(1) of the Constitution of India and discriminatory;

ii. ISSUE a writ order or direction to Respondents to continue the applicant as Director, NSSO, Field Operations Unit, Bangalore 560 034, by extending him parity of treatment and consequently extend all consequential benefits to him;

iii. ISSUE any other consequential directions or orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.”

2. The reliefs are claimed based on the grounds as mentioned in paragraphs 5 (A) (i) and (ii) of the Original Application. The brief facts as narrated by the applicant are that the applicant has been working as Director since 22.12.2021. The fourth respondent has been promoted to Junior Administrative Grade (JAG) of the Indian Statistical Service (ISS) and she has been accommodated and posted in place of the applicant when she had requested posting to Nagpur.

3. The applicant contends that being aggrieved by the order of transfer and rejection of his request for retention at Bangalore by a cryptic and non-speaking order and seeking directions to continue at Bangalore as Junior Administrative Officer of ISS, as against the vacancy available in the department and also challenging the applicant’s transfer as premature, arbitrary, illegal, malafide, and it is only to accommodate the 4th respondent and as applicant being at the verge of retirement within a period of two years, he has approached this Tribunal praying for the above-mentioned relief.

4. On notice, the respondent nos.1 to 3 and respondent no.4 have filed their separate reply statements. Further, the applicant has filed his rejoinder to both the reply statements.

5. The case came up for final hearing on 15.4.2025. Shri.Ranganath S.Jois for the applicant, Shri.Vishnu Bhat for respondent nos.1 to 3 and Shri.P.A Kulkarni for respondent No.4 were present and heard.

6. We have carefully gone through the entire records and considered the rival contentions of both parties.

7. From the averment of the parties, it is evident that the main case and grounds of the applicant are that, firstly, his transfer out of Bengaluru is pre-mature, illegal, malicious and arbitrary, as he had not completed his tenure of 3 years in Bengaluru. Secondly, the applicant also takes a contention that he is going to retire shortly (within two years), so, as per rules, he should not be transferred and hence he should be retained at his present place of posting. Thirdly, the case of the applicant is that his case is more meritorious than that of respondent no.4, who has been retained at Bengluru in his place whereas he was transferred out. Fourthly he makes a ground that his request for retention in Bangalore has been disposed off with a non-speaking cryptic order.

8. The basic fact of the case which is not denied is that the applicant joined service on 5.3.1993, and he was transferred vide Annexure A-1 dated 22.12.2021, where his name is at serial No.6, transferring him from PIMD, NSO, MoSPI, New Delhi to ZO, FOD, NSO, MoSPI, Bengaluru. He was further transferred out from Bangalore by order dated 16.10.2024 in which, at serial No.8, he was trans