Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 6057

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Mr.Shri Krishna, Member
Ms.Vidya Shree Bharti – Appellant
Versus
Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) - Central Institute of Fisheries Education (Deemed University) – Respondent
Original Application No.612/2024

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri M.V. Thorat
For the Respondents: Dr. V.B. Joshi

Transfers must comply with established policies, requiring prior approval for positions without sanctioned posts, and adhere to principles of natural justice.

Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Transfer of employee - Applicant transferred from Mumbai to Rohtak despite no sanctioned post available in her discipline - Transfer policy not adhered to, requiring prior approval of Ministry of Finance - Violation of natural justice principles as no opportunity was given to the applicant to present her case before the transfer decision was made. (Paras 2.1, 12, 19)

(B) Transfer Policy - Guidelines for transfers require that a post must be available for the employee's discipline at the transfer location - Failure to comply with transfer policy renders the transfer order invalid. (Paras 12, 19)

(C) Natural Justice - The principle of natural justice mandates that an employee must be given a fair opportunity to be heard before any adverse action, such as a transfer, is taken. (Paras 11.1, 13.1)

Facts of the case:
The applicant, a Senior Scientist in Soil Science, was transferred from Mumbai to Rohtak where no post in her discipline exists, violating transfer policy guidelines. The applicant argued that her transfer was arbitrary and not supported by necessary approvals.

Findings of Court:
The transfer order was quashed due to violation of transfer policy and lack of prior approval from the Ministry of Finance.

Issues: The court addressed whether the transfer was valid given the absence of a sanctioned post in the applicant's discipline and if proper procedures were followed.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that transfers must comply with established policies and that employees have a right to be heard before such decisions are made.

Result: The transfer order was quashed.

Table of Content
1. transfer procedures and guidelines. (Para 1 , 2)
2. respondents' justification for transfer. (Para 3)
3. applicant's counterarguments and claims. (Para 4)
4. submission of additional evidence. (Para 5)
5. respondents' legal arguments and case law. (Para 6)
6. defense of transfer as a service condition. (Para 7)
7. judicial scrutiny of transfer orders. (Para 8 , 9)
8. criteria for lawful transfers. (Para 10 , 11)
9. violation of transfer policy. (Para 12 , 13)
10. non-compliance with procedural requirements. (Para 14 , 15)
11. mandatory prior approvals for transfers. (Para 16)
12. final observations on transfer legality. (Para 17 , 18)
13. quashing of the transfer order. (Para 19)
14. conclusion and order of the tribunal. (Para 20 , 21)

O R D E R

The applicant has filed this O.A. under Section 19 of the AT Act, 1985 to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 08.05.2024 issued by the respondents by which she has been transferred from Mumbai and posted as Officer In-Charge of the Central Institute of Fisheries Education (CIFE), Rohtak in Haryana.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant was appointed as a Scientist in the year 2005 at IISS Bhopal. She was transferred to ICAR -CIFE Mumbai in 2007. Since then she is continuing in Mumbai. In 2017, she was promoted to the post of Senior Scientist. She was a guide to three Ph.D. Students and two PG students. Applicant submits that as per the policy guideline dated 30.09.2009 of the DoPT, the wife and husband working in the same office are to be mandatorily posted at the same station. She submits that the applicant and her husband both have been posted and working with the office of the respondents at ICAR -CIFE, Mumbai since 2007.

2.1. It is the case of the applicant that the applicant has been transferred from Mumbai Headquarters to Regional Centre at Rohtak, Haryana where there is no post of Senior Scientist (Soil Science) whereas Rohtak Centre is looking after the research of Aquaculture, that in the whole organization of CIFE which has five Regional Centres at Rohtak (Haryana), Kolkata (West Bengal), Motihari (Bihar), Kakinada (Andhra Pradesh) and Pawarkheda (Madhya Pradesh), there is no post of Senior Scientist (Soil Science) except at Mumbai where there are two posts of Scientist (Soil Science). She is the only Scientist of Soil Science working at Mumbai as other post was lying vacant since last five years. Now with her transfer to Rohtak both the posts in Mumbai are lying vacant.

2.2 The applicant submits that as per the ICAR Office Order F.No.41(2)/2005-Per.IV dated 26.05.2017, all cases of redeployment / transfer / diversion / adjustment / upgradation / redesignation of posts shall be done only with prior approval of Ministry of Finance. She submits that no such approval has been taken from the Ministry of Finance and thus, the impugned transfer order is in violation of the respondents own guidelines.

2.3. It is further submitted that her daughter is in XII standard and taking the coaching for JEE exams. Her second child is 8 years old. Therefore, in view of this, she represented vide her email dated 01.05.2024 to the respondents after impugned order was passed that she may be retained in Mumbai till her daughter's XII board examination along with IIT JEE advanced examination in the coming year 2025 is over as her daughter needs her at Mumbai for her career guidance. However, the said representation was rejected by the respondents on the ground that the purpose of her transfer is to advance her professional growth and enrich her experience, besides fulfilling the Institutional requirements. They have further stated that her role as Officer-in-Charge as well as an expert in the area of Soil Science and Inland Saline Soil Aquaculture Environment will be pivotal.

3. After issue of notice the respondents have filed their reply. It has been submitted that the applicant is a Senior Scientist specializing in Soil Science and has been an integral part of CIFE since 24.12

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 6057

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALMr.Shri Krishna, MemberMs.Vidya Shree Bharti – AppellantVersusIndian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) - Central Institute of Fisheries Education (Deemed University) – RespondentOriginal Application No.612/2024

Transfers must comply with established policies, requiring prior approval for positions without sanctioned posts, and adhere to principles of natural justice.

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Mr.Shri Krishna, Member
Ms.Vidya Shree Bharti – Appellant
Versus
Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) - Central Institute of Fisheries Education (Deemed University) – Respondent
Original Application No.612/2024