Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 170

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
R.N. Singh, Member (J), Anand S. Khati, Member (A)
Deepti Rohilla – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
O.A. No. 3734/2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Priyanka Bhardwaj, M.K. Bhardwaj
For the Respondents: Jalaj Aggarwal, Madhumita Bhattacharjee

State governments cannot deny an inter-cadre transfer request under established spouse-ground policies citing personnel shortages. Protection of family life, as a facet of personal liberty, takes precedence over administrative convenience when the legal framework provides for such transfers.

Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 and 20 - Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954 - Rule 5(2) - Inter-cadre transfer on grounds of marriage - Requirement of No Objection Certificate (NOC) - Applicant sought transfer due to marriage with another service officer - State government withheld NOC citing acute shortage of personnel - Tribunal held that the policy for cadre transfer on spouse ground does not confer absolute right on state to withhold consent based on personnel shortage - The policy aims to balance professional duties with family life under Article 21, and administrative convenience cannot override the necessity of preserving familial relations for public servants. (Paras 10, 11, 12, 17)

(B) Exhaustion of departmental remedies - Section 20 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Premature filing of application - The requirement to wait for six months for a representation response may be waived by the Tribunal in exceptional cases involving the denial of significant personal or constitutional rights, such as family co-location, where there is clear inaction or where the legal position is well-settled. (Paras 13, 14, 14.1)

Facts of the case:
The applicant, an officer of an all-india service, requested an inter-cadre transfer to the cadre of her spouse following their marriage. While the receiving state government provided a ‘No Objection Certificate’, the parent state government delayed or refused to provide the same, citing an acute shortage of officers and administrative requirements as the primary reason for non-issuance.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the grounds for denying an NOC due to personnel shortages have been repeatedly rejected in previous judicial pronouncements. The court emphasized that the right to start a family and maintain a healthy family life is an essential component of human dignity and personal liberty. The refusal to grant an NOC for administrative reasons in this context is inconsistent with established policy and constitutional values.

Issues: Whether the state government is entitled to deny an inter-cadre transfer on the ground of marriage due to a perceived shortage of officers, and whether the application was premature under the Administrative Tribunals Act.

Ratio Decidendi: Inter-cadre transfer policies for service officers on marriage grounds must be interpreted in a manner that protects the constitutional right to family life. The plea of administrative personnel shortage is not a valid ground to deny such transfers when the legal framework expressly allows for them, and prior judicial precedents have consistently established that such requests should be favorably considered.

Result: Application allowed. The state government is directed to issue the NOC within two weeks; failing which, it shall be deemed issued by operation of law.

Table of Content
1. factual background regarding inter-cadre transfer request and administrative opposition. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. parties' contentions regarding cadre shortages and statutory exhaustion of remedies. (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
3. relevant rules govern cadre transfer on marriage without absolute prohibition. (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
4. exceptions to the exhaustion of administrative remedies under section 20 of the at act. (Para 13 , 14)
5. denial of noc due to administrative shortage is legally unsustainable; transfer directed. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)

O R D E R

Hon’ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J):

The present Original Application (OA) has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 feeling aggrieved by non grant of No Objection Certificate (hereinafter referred to as NOC) by the Respondent no. 2 for change of her cadre from West Bengal Cadre to Jharkhand Cadre which she has sought on the ground of her marriage with Sh. Siddhant Kumar, IAS:2024:JH in consonance with the Rules and policy on the subject and in view of various judgments of this Tribunal as well as those of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi.

2. The relevant facts leading to filing of the present OA are that the applicant is an Indian Administrative Service (IAS) Officer of 2024 batch and has been allocated West Bengal Cadre. She got married to Sh. Siddhant Kumar, who is an IAS Officer of 2024 batch and has been allocated Jharkhand Cadre. In view of her marriage, the applicant became eligible for making a request for change of her Cadre in the IAS from West Bengal cadre to Jharkhand cadre as per OMs dated 08.11.2004 and 11.11.2022 (Annexure A-4) of respondent no. 1.

1. Accordingly, the applicant made a representation/application in this regard. The husband of the applicant also made a representation to the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand on 11.07.2025 (Annexure A-2) requesting to change the cadre of his spouse, i.e. the applicant herein, from West Bengal Cadre to Jharkhand Cadre. However, no decision has yet been taken on such representation(s) of the applicant. Hence, the present OA seeking the following reliefs:

“(a) To declare the action of respondent no. 2 in delaying the NOC and thereby delaying the joining of applicant in Jharkhand Cadre as illegal and issue appropriate directions to Respondent No. 2 to issue NOC and relieve the applicant to join the Jharkhand Cadre.

(ii) To direct the respondents to complete the requisite exercise of change of cadre of applicant from West Bengal to State of Jharkhand without any delay and by following the same analogy as followed in the case of Ananya Singh, IAS in OA No. 292 of 2024, Avinash Kumar, IAS in OA 3835 of 2024, Arsh Verma, Bhavna Gupta, Loganayagi Divya V. and Gandharva Rathore.

(iii) Such other and further order which this Hon’ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in the interest of justice.”

3. In response to notice, counter reply on behalf of Respondent no. 1 is on record. By referring to the counter reply, learned counsel for respondent no. 1 submits that the request of the applicant for inter cadre transfer was examined and the State Government of Jharkhand vide letter dated 06.08.2025 conveyed its concurrence for the same and vide letter dated 22.08.2025 requested the comments/concurrence from the State Government of West Bengal. It is submitted that the Government of West Bengal has not provided any comments in the matter till date. Therefore, they are unable to process the request of the applicant further in absence of any response from Government of West Bengal. Learned counsel submits that no action is pending on part of respondent no. 1 as the matter can be processed further only on receipt of NOC from West Bengal Cadre.

4. On behalf of respondent no. 2, counter reply is on record. Learned counsel for respondent no. 2 submits that the applicant is an IAS Officer of West Bengal Cadre of 2024 batch who got married to Sh. Siddhant Kumar, IAS (JH-2024) on 0

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 170

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALR.N. Singh, Member (J), Anand S. Khati, Member (A)Deepti Rohilla – AppellantVersusUnion of India – RespondentO.A. No. 3734/2025

State governments cannot deny an inter-cadre transfer request under established spouse-ground policies citing personnel shortages. Protection of family life, as a facet of personal liberty, takes precedence over administrative convenience when the legal framework provides for such transfers.

Cases Referred (1)

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
R.N. Singh, Member (J), Anand S. Khati, Member (A)
Deepti Rohilla – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
O.A. No. 3734/2025