CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK Order Sheet Item no.: 118 No of Adjournment: 1 O.A./168/2026 (CUTTACK)

[ TRANSFER ]

Order Dated: 08/04/2026 Court No.: 1 KHIROD KUMAR PAHI Vs CENTRAL GROUND WATER BOARD For Applicant(s) Advocate : S B Jena, Satyajit Behera For Respondent(s) Advocate : R S Pattnaik natural justice, the corner stone of judiciary, and accordingly this Tribunal had granted time of fourteen days for the respondents to file objection to IR.

7. The applicant had filed representation dated 02.04.2026 wherein he has taken grounds of (1) dependant aged father, (2) daughter under psychiatric treatment, (3) daughter pursuing B.

nd Tech (2 year) and (4) transfer policy provision (premature transfer). In the said representation under transfer policy provision he has stated that the prescribed tenure at a station is 15 years, however he has completed only about 12 years. He has not raised the issue of respondent no. 4 transfer to Bhubaneswar is violative of transfer policy.

8. Further it is seen from the transfer policy at clause 14 which stipulates that the transfer policy envisages a fixed tenure at a station before consideration of any transfer except Transfer on compassionate grounds and on mutual transfer. Under clause 8 it states that employee due for superannuation within 2 years may request for the last posting at his choice station for consideration and request for transfer on Medical grounds will be considered after due verification from a medical board/report from Chief Medical Officers of the Government Hospital.

9. It was ascertained during the time of hearing that respondent no. 4 is going to retire in June 2028 which means he has only two years of service left. The applicant is aged around 57 years and has three years of service left.

10. The law regarding interference of Court in transfer of an employee is now well settled. The Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla vide its judgment dated 04.09.2020 in CMP No. 3311 of 2020 (Ghanshyam Dass v. State of Himachal Pradesh and another) has listed various decisions relating to the cases of transfer and summarized the findings of the Court in para

9 which read as under:

“1. Transfer is a condition of service.

2. It does not adversely affect the status or emoluments or seniority of the employee.

3. The employee has no vested right to get a posting at a particular place or choose to serve at a particular place for a particular time.

4. It is within the exclusive domain of the employer to determine as to at what place and for how long the services of a particular employee are required.

5. Transfer order should be passed in public interest or administrative exigency, and not arbitrarily or for extraneous consideration or for victimization of the employee nor it should be passed under political pressure.

6. There is very little scope of judicial review by Courts/Tribunals against the transfer order and the same KUMAR is restricted only if the transfer order is found to be in Signing Date:10.04.2026 contravention of the statutory Rules or mala fides are established.

KUMAR