Policy changes regarding transfer and posting, including spouse/compassionate grounds, are matters within the exclusive domain of the Executive, not subject to judicial mandate.

Headnote:(A) Government of India Office Memorandums - Ministry of Finance O.M. dated 14.12.1983, 22.07.1998, 29.08.2008, 02.04.2013, 24.04.2014 - Incentives for serving in remote/North-East areas - Choice station posting on completion of fixed tenure - Spouse posting under O.M. dated 30.09.2009 - Transfer and posting policy - Constitutional Articles 14, 16 - Judicial restraint - Policy matters within domain of Executive. (Paras 1, 14, 16, 17)

(B) Transfer - No absolute right to be posted at a particular place - It is for the employer to decide based on administrative requirements. (Paras 11, 12)

(C) CAG as Constitutional Authority - Retains prerogative to formulate or deviate from general policy guidelines based on unique requirements and administrative exigencies. (Para 13)

Facts of the case:
The applicants, serving in various clerical and officer grades under the Principal Accountant General in Manipur and Arunachal Pradesh, challenged the rejection of their representations for choice station posting, rotational transfer, and spouse ground transfer. They claimed entitlement under Government of India Office Memorandums providing incentives for serving in North-East regions, arguing that similar benefits were granted to Group-'A' officers and Rajbhasha Cadre employees, thus discriminating against them in violation of Articles 14 and 16. The respondents (Union of India, CAG, and Principal Accountant Generals) contended that the applicants' posts were local cadres without All India transfer liability, that unilateral transfers were banned, and that the transfer policy was within the domain of the CAG as a Constitutional Authority.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal held that the relief sought, being a change in policy, falls within the exclusive domain of the Executive. The CAG, as a Constitutional and Statutory Authority under Article 148(5), retains the prerogative to formulate or deviate from general policy guidelines. The Tribunal exercised judicial restraint and declined to issue mandatory instructions infringing upon CAG's administrative autonomy. It noted that while the CAG may consider adopting beneficial policies for similarly placed employees, this cannot be compelled through judicial intervention. The precedents cited by the applicants were distinguished as not binding on the facts. The Original Application was dismissed.

Issues: The main issues were whether the applicants have a legal right to choice station posting, rotational transfer, and spouse ground transfer based on Government OMs, and whether the CAG's deviation from such guidelines constitutes arbitrariness violating equality under Articles 14 and 16.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that policy modifications regarding transfers and postings are matters for the Executive (employer), not for judicial mandate. In the absence of an existing departmental policy applicable to the applicants, they cannot insist on implementation of general guidelines. Judicial intervention is not warranted when the relief sought is a change in policy, which lies within the administrative autonomy of the Constitutional Authority (CAG).

Result: Original Application dismissed. Interim orders vacated. No order as to costs.

Table of Content
1. applicants plead for choice station posting and spouse transfer based on government oms. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. respondents counter claiming no policy basis for applicants' demands and citing legal precedents. (Para 7 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
3. tribunal finds policy modification is exclusive domain of executive and dismisses application. (Para 8 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)

ORDER

PER MR. SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A):

1.The applicants are presently serving as Data Entry Operator Grade - A, Data Entry Operator Grade B, Sr. Auditor, Stenographer Grade II, Assistant Accounts Officer as well as Assistant Audit Officer in the establishment of the Principal Accountant General (A&E) and Principal Accountant General (Audit), Manipur, Imphal and in the establishment of the Principal Accountant General, Arunachal Pradesh,Itanagar. All the applicants had joined on different dates in their respective cadres after being declared successful in the relevant competitive examination conducted by Staff Selection Commission.Most of the applicants are permanent residents of different states, outside North Eastern Region, however, some of the applicants are residents of North-Eastern Region.

This application is made against the impugned Letter dated 18.12.2019(Annexure-A/1), whereby the representations made by the applicants for consideration of one time transfer opportunity in offices located in their home states or nearby their home states/Choice station,have been rejected and this application is also made against the impugned consequential letter dated 06.01.2020(Annexure-A/2),with a prayer for a direction upon the respondents for extension of benefit of rotational transfer/choice station posting on completion of fixed tenure in North-Eastern Region in the light of Govt. of India’s, Ministry of Finance- O.Ms dated 14.12.1983(Annexure-A/4), 22.07.1998. The Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India(CAG), New Delhi, vide Letter dated 26.11.2019 has extended benefit of choice station posting/rotational posting to the similarly situated employees working in the Rajbhasha Cadre in the event of their posting in the Offices of the Principal Accountant General, North Eastern Region.

2. The applicants have stated that the Office of the Comptroller & Auditor General of India(CAG), New Delhi vide O.M. dated 08.01.2014 provided the benefit of tenure posting in North East region to Grade –‘A’ officers only and the same has been denied to the present applicants in a most arbitrary and illegal manner without having any valid reason. It is specifically stated that all the present applicants are saddled with all India transfer liability as per terms and conditions laid down in the Offer of Appointment letters of the individual applicants. It is further stated that no restriction is made in the matter of extension of benefit of choice station posting in terms of Govt. of India’s O.M.s dated 14.12.1983, 29.08.2008, 02.04.2013, 24.04.2014 in respect of Civilian Central Govt. employees, who are saddled with all India transfer liability either in the cadre of Group - 'A', 'B' or 'C'. In view of the provision laid down in the O.M. dated 14.12.1983 giving incentives for serving in remote areas as well as in the other subsequent Office Memorandums, the present applicants have acquired legal rights for choice station posting on completion of the fixed tenure. Such discrimination in the matter of transfer and postings, more so in rotational transfer, compassionate transfer and postings on spouse ground and denial of which amounts to violation of article 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

3. But surprisingly, similar benefit of choice station posting has been denied to the present applicants who are also similarly situated like those incumbents working in the Rajbhasha Cadre and the applicants are treated with hostile discrimination which cannot be sustained in the eye of law and are in violation of principle laid down in article 14 of the Constitutio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 1826

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALShailesh Kumar Mehta – AppellantVersusPrincipal Accountant General (a&e) Imphal – RespondentO.A./53/2020

Policy changes regarding transfer and posting, including spouse/compassionate grounds, are matters within the exclusive domain of the Executive, not subject to judicial mandate.

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Shailesh Kumar Mehta – Appellant
Versus
Principal Accountant General (a&e) Imphal – Respondent
O.A./53/2020