2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 13379

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
S. Sujatha, Member (J), Sanjiv Kumar, Member (A)
Jambhulkar Naresh Dnyaneshwar – Appellant
Versus
Development Commissioner for Handlooms – Respondent
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 170/00081/2025

A transfer to a location not requested by the employee, following completion of a mandatory tenure in a difficult area, cannot be classified as an 'own request' transfer to deny financial or service benefits; such a transfer must be treated as being in public interest.

Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Service Law - Transfer of government employees - Transfer from difficult areas (North-Eastern Region) - Scope of 'request transfer' versus 'public interest' transfer - Tenure policy for posting in difficult areas - Entitlement to joining time and transfer travelling allowance (TTA) benefits.

(B) Transfer Policy - Tenure of two years fixed for officers serving in difficult areas - Completion of prescribed tenure entitles an officer to be considered for a posting of choice - A unilateral transfer to a station not specifically opted for by the government servant cannot be classified as a 'transfer on request' to deny benefits - Such transfers, when effected after completion of mandatory tenure, constitute transfers in public interest, rendering the employee eligible for consequential service benefits (Paras 15, 16, 25, 30).

(C) Travelling Allowance - Entitlement for return journey - Provisions governing transfer to difficult areas apply mutatis mutandis to return journeys - Denial of financial benefits for return transfers after completing prescribed tenure in difficult regions is legally unsustainable (Paras 17, 26, 27).

Facts of the case:
The applicant, an officer with over ten years of service, completed more than the mandated two-year tenure in a remote, difficult region. Upon seeking a transfer, the applicant requested specific stations. The authorities transferred the applicant to a different location not included in the requested options, categorizing the movement as an 'own request' transfer, thereby denying transfer allowance and joining time benefits. The applicant challenged the classification of the transfer as a 'request' transfer, seeking the benefits associated with a transfer in public interest.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the transfer was not a 'request' transfer since the station allotted was not the station requested by the applicant. Consequently, the respondents could not unilaterally classify the transfer as 'own request' to deprive the officer of entitlements. Rules governing service in difficult areas and subsequent repatriation ensure that an officer is entitled to transfer benefits once the prescribed tenure is completed.

Issues: Whether the transfer to a station not specifically requested by the employee after completing the mandatory tenure in a difficult area can be classified as a 'request transfer' to deny transfer benefits; whether an officer is entitled to financial benefits for return journeys from difficult areas upon completing the fixed tenure.

Ratio Decidendi: A transfer order issued to a station other than the one opted for by the government employee does not qualify as an 'own request' transfer, regardless of the employee's initial application for a transfer. Such a transfer must be treated as a transfer in public interest to avoid arbitrary denial of statutory travel and joining time benefits, particularly when the employee has completed the mandated tenure in a difficult geographical region.

Result: Original Application allowed. Impugned transfer order modified to reflect 'in public interest' status, with direction to grant all consequential benefits.