O R D E R (ORAL)

As per: Ajay Pratap Singh, Member (Judicial)

Heard the parties with consent.

2. By means of the present Original Application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has challenged the transfer/posting order dated 27.05.2023 and consequential order dated 18.07.2023 whereby his request for retention has been declined and he has been redeployed pursuant to disbandment /restructuring exercise.

3. Briefly stated, facts as adumbrated by the applicant are that he was appointed as Fireman on 03.11.2006 and was subsequently posted at CVD Delhi Cantt. (now VSD) on medical grounds.

4. It is the case of the applicant that pursuant to policy decisions regarding closure/disbandment of depots and redeployment of civilian defence employees, orders were issued from time to time resulting in the impugned order dated 27.05.2023, whereby the fire fighting staff was redeployed.

5. The applicant submits that he had earlier been posted from tenure station to non-tenure station (Delhi) and as per Records Officer Instructions (ROI) dated 10.05.2022, he was entitled to remain at the present station for the prescribed tenure of six years.

6. It is further stated that despite submission of representation dated 12.06.2023, and even after direction of this Tribunal in earlier OA to decide the representation, the respondents rejected the same vide order dated 18.07.2023.

7. The applicant has also alleged discrimination on the ground that similarly placed employees including respondents No. 7 and 8, who are juniors, have been retained at Delhi while the applicant has been transferred.

8. Per contra, respondents have contested the claim stating that applicant is a Group ‘C’ employee having all India transfer liability and has been redeployed strictly as per policy and administrative exigencies arising out of disbandment and reduction in authorized strength. It is further averred that postings were made on the basis of seniority, availability of vacancies and policy guidelines, and that no vacancy exists in Delhi or within 50 km radius to accommodate the applicant.

9. Respondents also submit that representation of the applicant was duly considered and rejected by a reasoned order and there is no violation of any statutory rule or policy.

10. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the impugned orders are arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of ROI dated 10.05.2022, particularly the clauses relating to tenure and retention at non-tenure station.

11. It is contended that similarly placed employees have been retained while the applicant has been singled out for transfer, thus violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

12. Learned counsel for respondents, on the other hand, submitted that transfer/posting is an incidence of service and the applicant has no vested right to remain posted at a particular station. It is further argued that redeployment has been done in public interest and administrative exigency.

13. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.

14. It is a trite law that scope of judicial interference in transfer/posting matters is limited and the Tribunal would interfere only in cases of violation of statutory rules or mala fide exercise of power.

15. In the present case, it is not in dispute that restructuring/disbandment of units has taken place and redeployment of staff was necessitated. The applicant, being a civilian defence employee, is governed by transfer liability on all India basis and cannot claim posting at a particular station as a matter of right.

16. The contention of the applicant regarding violation of ROI policy does not hold much ground as the said policy itself provides for posting based on administrative requirement and availability of vacancies.

17. The plea of discrimination has also been raised; however, mere retention of some employees at a particular station cannot be a ground to invalidate transfer unless clear a