Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 4958

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
B Anand, Member (A)
Shane Mabood – Appellant
Versus
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited – Respondent
O.A. No. 3092/2025|O.A. No. 3234/2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Saket Jain, Ms. Shivangi Anand, Mr. Sarthak Kumar Meena
For the Respondents: Mr. Ashok Kumar Poddar, Ms. Sneha Poddar

Employer must implement approved request transfer orders per policy; failure violates guidelines permitting judicial interference, though employee must join new post despite challenge absent stay.

Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Service law - Transfer - Employee applied for transfer through Online Transfer Portal to corporate office - Transfer order issued but not implemented by employer - Subsequent transfer order to different circle challenged - Employer cannot ignore own policy requiring implementation of request transfer orders within three months or direct relief via ERP; failure to implement casts responsibility on employer, not employee alone - Policy violation permits judicial interference despite transfer being incident of service. (Paras 14, 16, 18)

(B) Transfer policy - Request transfers via portal - Orders not to be cancelled under any circumstances - Implementation obligatory on circle offices within three months, failing which direct relief or cancellation in organizational interest - Principle of legitimate expectation applies where employee led to believe approved request would be effected. (Para 4)

(C) Judicial review of transfers - Limited to violation of policy/guidelines, mala fides, incompetence, or punishment - No vested right to particular posting; courts reluctant to interfere absent policy breach - Employee must join despite challenge, absent stay; unauthorized absence not condoned. (Paras 12, 17, 20)

Facts of the case:
Applicants, long-serving in one circle beyond tenure, applied via Online Transfer Portal for posting to corporate office; order issued but unimplemented for nearly a year. Employer then transferred them to shortage circle via new order and relieved them, citing excess tenure and administrative needs. Applicants challenged, claiming policy violation and arbitrariness, while continuing at old station post-relief without joining new post or securing stay.

Findings of Court:
Respondents violated own transfer policy by not implementing approved request order; arbitrarily reassigned applicants despite examples of similar non-implementation favouring others. However, applicants' refusal to join post-relief, absent stay, over nearly a year unappreciated; must comply with transfer pending representation.

Issues: Whether failure to implement approved request transfer order permits subsequent arbitrary reassignment violating policy; scope of judicial review in transfers; employee duty to join despite challenge.

Ratio Decidendi: Employer bears primary duty to implement transfer orders per policy; judicial interference warranted on policy violation despite limited review scope in transfers. Employee cannot stall by non-joining without stay; administration paramount.

Result: O.As. partially allowed - Impugned orders not quashed; respondents to consider representation on all grounds; applicants directed to join place of posting per order.

Table of Content
1. de-tagging oas for independent consideration. (Para 1 , 2)
2. applicant's otp transfer to bsnlco unimplemented. (Para 3 , 4 , 18)
3. bsnl violated own otp policy and discriminated. (Para 5 , 6 , 9)
4. transfer exigency overrides tenure and otp rights. (Para 7 , 10)
5. no specific mala fides proven in transfer. (Para 8 , 11 , 12)
6. respondents responsible for implementing transfer orders. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
7. employees must comply with transfers despite challenges. (Para 17 , 19 , 20 , 21)
8. oas partially allowed; comply with transfer orders. (Para 22 , 23)

ORDER

O.A./3092/2025 & 3234/2025

1. In the first instance O.A. No. 3234/2025, 3092/2025 and 2503/2025 were being heard together as all these were tagged. On 09.01.2026, the following order has been passed:-

“1. All the three OAs were tagged together on the ground that the applicants in all the three OAs have challenged the same transfer order issued by the respondent (BSNL). Accordingly, the learned counsel for the applicant in OA No. 3092/2025 was heard in detail and the learned counsel in one of the other OAs was also heard partially on the last date of hearing, i.e. 15.12.2025, and the matter was reserved for orders.

2. However, while drafting the judgment, it is noticed that although the challenge in all the three OAs is to a common transfer order issued by the respondents, the facts and circumstances of each of the three applicants are different and require independent consideration and appreciation.

3. Therefore, in the interest of justice and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the order reserving the matter is recalled. The Registry is directed to de-tag all the three OAs and list them separately before the same Bench (Hon’ble Mr. B. Anand, Member (A).”

Vide the above quoted order dated 09.01.2026 all the three O.As. were de-tagged and heard separately thereafter. However, learned counsel for the applicant in his written submissions states that the facts pertaining to both the applicants pertaining to O.A. No. 3234/2025 are similar to the facts in O.A. No. 3092/2025, therefore, I have chosen to write a common judgment in O.A. No. 3234/2025 and 3092/2025. However, for the sake of brevity, the facts are being extracted primarily from O.A. No. 3092/2025 (Shane Mabood Vs. BSNL and Others)

2. By way of the present O.A. filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has sought the following relief(s):-

“A. Quash/ set aside the impugned transfer order dated 02.05.2025 to the extent it affects the Applicant at the Serial no. 511 of the said transfer order.

B. Quash/ set aside the relieving order dated 02.06.2025, meant for transfer to Gujarat Circle.

C. Direct the Respondents to implement the transfer order dated 07.06.24 vide which the Applicant have been transferred to BSNLCO under OTP transfer order. D. Pass any other order this Hon’ble tribunal may deem fit.”

3. Learned counsel for the applicant at the outset draws my attention to the subject of Online Transfer Portal (OTP) contained in the respondents’ letter dated 26.07.2022 and submits that the applicant had applied for a transfer from UP West to BSNL Corporate Office, New Delhi. He submits that the applicant’s request was acceded to by the respondents and by their order dated 07.06.2024, they have transferred him from UP West to BSNL Corporate Office, Delhi. The applicant states that despite the said transfer order dated 07.06.2024, the respondents had not taken the consequent step of relieving him from UP West and enabling him to join at his new place of posting in the BSNL Corporate Office, Delhi. While that being the case, after nearly a year, suddenly, vide order dated 02.05.2025 (which is impugned in the present O.A.), the respondents have transferred the applicant from UP West to Gujarat Circle for the reason that the earlier transfer order dated 07.06.2024 is an unimplemented transfer order. The applicant is aggrieved by this impugned order and the con

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 4958

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALB Anand, Member (A)Shane Mabood – AppellantVersusBharat Sanchar Nigam Limited – RespondentO.A. No. 3092/2025|O.A. No. 3234/2025

Employer must implement approved request transfer orders per policy; failure violates guidelines permitting judicial interference, though employee must join new post despite challenge absent stay.

Cases Referred (5)

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
B Anand, Member (A)
Shane Mabood – Appellant
Versus
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited – Respondent
O.A. No. 3092/2025|O.A. No. 3234/2025