SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 479

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Sanghamitra Ghosh – Appellant
Versus
Director General Of Medical Services – Respondent
O.A./1301/2025



CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH, KOLKATA Date of Hearing: 15.12.2025 Date of Order: 13.01.2026 Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Anindo Majumdar, Administrative Member Hon’ble Mr. Diwakar Singh, Judicial Member In the matter of :

Dr. Sanghamitra Ghosh, wife of Dr. Surajit Ghosh, aged about 61 years, working as Medical Officer in charge of Family Welfare Centre under DGAFMS [CMO(NFSG)], residing at 390 S.N. Roy Road, Girikunj -305A, Kolkata 700028 ......... Applicant -Versus-

1. Union of India, service through the Secretary. Ministry of Defence, Raksha Bhawan, Delhi - 110001

2. Director General, Armed Forces Medical Services, Defence Office Complex, A-Block, Africa Avenue, New Delhi, Pin-110023.

3. Deputy Director, Ministry of Defence office of the DGAFMS/DG3D, Defence Office Complex, 5th Floor, A-Block, Africa Avenue, New Delhi, Pin -110023

4. The Commandant, Command Hospital (EC), Alipore, Kolkata -

700027.

…….Respondents For The Applicant(s): Mr. A. K. Dutta; Counsel For The Respondent(s): Mr. K. K. Ganguly, Counsel O R D E R Per: Mr. Diwakar Singh, Member (J)

Heard Ld. Counsel on both the sides.

2. The applicant has filed this original application, seeking the following relief(s):

“i. Office Order DGAFMS/DG-3D Vide no. 35273/CAT/OA No.350/960/2025/ DGAFMS/DG-3D (Vol-1) along with new posting place dated 22.08.2025 issued by Deputy Director, O/o DGAFMS/DG-3D cannot be sustained in the eye of law and as such same may be quashed.”

3. The applicant in the instant O.A. is a Civilian Lady Medical Officer (CMO–NFSG) under the Directorate General of Armed Forces Medical Services (DGAFMS), Ministry of Defence, having joined service in the year 1992. Over the course of her service, she has held postings at FWC, Kalaikunda, thereafter at FWC, Command Hospital (Eastern Command), Kolkata for a considerable period, followed by a posting at FWC, Metal & Steel Factory, Ishapore from May 2012 to May 2017, and again at FWC, Command Hospital (EC), Kolkata from May 2017 onwards. The applicant has thus spent a substantial part of her service tenure in and around Kolkata. The present O.A. arises out of the transfer/posting order dated 22.08.2025, whereby, pursuant to consideration of her representation and in supersession of an earlier posting to Bareilly, she was posted to FWC, 2 Wing Air Force, Pune. Aggrieved by the said transfer order, the applicant has approached this Tribunal.

4. The applicant has assailed the impugned transfer order primarily on the grounds that she is aged about 61 years and is nearing superannuation, and, that her husband, aged about 73 years, is suffering from prostate cancer, cardiac ailments and other associated medical conditions. The applicant has also stated that she is suffering from multiple age-related ailments. It is her case that under the Turn Over Policy for Doctors working in Family Welfare Organisation under DGAFMS, compassionate posting and last tenure posting protections ought to have been extended to her, and that the impugned transfer order is arbitrary, malafide, actuated by nepotism, and vitiated by “malice in law”. The applicant has also alleged that the medical board constituted by the respondents acted mechanically and without affording her an opportunity of hearing, and that the respondents failed to properly appreciate her medical and family circumstances. Ld. Counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon various judicial precedents to contend that arbitrary and malafide transfers warrant interference. It is also relevant to note that when this matter was initially taken up, this Tribunal, vide daily order dated 15.09.2025, had granted interim protection and directed the respondents not to take coercive action against the applicant, while calling for their response.

5. The respondents, in their reply, as well as, during arguments, have controverted the allegations of malafide and arbitrariness. It is their categorical stand that the applicant is governed by the Turn Over Policy dated 06.07.2011, which c

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top