Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 8966
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Anindo Majumdar, AM, Rajnish Kumar Rai, JM
Kishor Kumar Roy – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
O.A. 350/492/2025 | M.A. 350/376/2025
For the Applicant: Mr. B. Chatterjee
For the Respondents: Mr. Counsel
Judicial review of transfer orders for government employees is limited; interference is only warranted in cases of malafide actions or statutory violations.
Headnote:(A) Indian Constitution - Transfer Policy - The scope of judicial review concerning transfer orders of government employees is limited; interference is justified only when there is malafide intent, statutory violation, or incompetency of authority. (Paras 9, 9.1)
(B) Uttarakhand High Court Guidelines - The transfer policy serves as guidelines and cannot acquire the authority of statutory rules, hence can be modified administratively. (Paras 5)
Facts of the case:
The applicant challenges a movement order and a promotion cum transfer order issued by respondents. His representation requesting to forego promotion was not accepted properly.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal directed the respondents to review the applicant's representation and consider all aspects including family dependency.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the applicant's representation to refuse promotion was adequately considered and the implications of family circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi: The Transfer Policy must be respected, but courts have limited scope to intervene unless malafide intent or statutory breaches are evidenced.
Result: The O.A. was disposed of with directions to the respondents to reconsider the applicant's representation.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. applicant challenges promotion and transfer orders. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments submitted regarding promotion acceptance and family circumstances. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's stance on limited interference in transfer issues. (Para 6 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. distinction between statutory and executive powers. (Para 7) |
| 5. direction to reconsider applicant's representation. (Para 10 , 11) |
ORDER (Oral)
Mr. Rajnish Kumar Rai, Judicial Member:
The applicant has filed this Original Application challenging the movement order dated 20.03.2025 qua the applicant as well as promotion cum transfer /posting order dated 18.03.2025 vide which he has been promoted to the post of Electrician HS-II from GE (AF), Kalaikunda to GE, Panagarh (Annexure A/1).
2. This court while hearing this O.A. has passed the following order on 21.04.2025:-
“Learned Counsel for the applicant Mr. B. Chatterjee is present and heard.
Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that he has served a copy of the O.A. upon the answering Respondent no. 3,4,5 through speed post and e-mail. He places a copy of the affidavit of service which is taken on record. However, none appears for the respondents.
Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was transferred from Kalaikunda where he is presently serving to Panagarh vide promotion cum posting order dated 18/4/2025.
He further submits that he had submitted a representation dated 24/3/2025 to the Garrison Engineer (AF), Kalaikunda wherein he had requested to cancel his order and had also stated that if necessary, he is willing to surrender his promotion.
Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the Respondent no. 4 vide his order dated 28/3/2025 informed the applicant that his prayer for refusal of promotion has not been acceeded to and vide the said order only the date of his movement was changed from 22/3/2025 to 1/4/2025.
Learned Counsel for the applicant further submits that the extant rules provides that an employee can forego his promotion. He places a copy of the relevant rules in support of his contention in this regard.
Keeping in view the submissions made by Learned Counsel for the applicant, the Respondent no. 4 is directed to review the order dated 28/3/2025 and re-consider the prayer of the applicant made vide his representation dated 24/3/2025.
The operation of the impugned order of promotion cum posting dated 18/4/2025 is stayed till the next date of listing.
Meanwhile, the respondents are directed to file their reply within a period of 2 weeks. Rejoinder, if any, to be filed within a period of 2 weeks’ thereafter, if so desired.
List the matter on 22/5/2025.”
The aforesaid interim order which has been granted by this court, is in operation till date.
3. The respondents have filed M.A.No.376 of 2025 for vacating the aforesaid interim order dated 21.04.2025.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the representation of the applicant was considered by the competent authority and in view of the fact that the son of the applicant is studying in Class-XII and is appearing in the final examination, modified the movement order and changed the date of movement to 01.04.2025 vide order dated 28.03.2025 (Annexure A/6). He has further submitted that the applicant himself had given an undertaking dated 27.10.2017(Annexure MA 12, Page 63 of M.A.) that he was accepting the MACP and would accept regular promotion to the post on occurrence of vacancy subsequently, therefore, he cannot refuse to join at GE Panagarh at this stage on some flimsy grounds. He has contended that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has passed various pronouncements on the issue of transfer, wherein it has been stated that there is very limited scope of interference by the Courts or Tribunals in the matter of transfer. In support of his statement he has relied on a recent judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 13.03.2024 in Pubi Lombi Vs. The State of Arunachal Pradesh & Others ( Civil Appeal No.4129 of 2024 arising out of Special Leav
