Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 6821

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Sanjeeva Kumar, Member (A), Ajay Pratap Singh, Member (J)
Amiya Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Secretary Revenue Govt of India Ministry of Finance – Respondent
OA No.2045/2024 | OA No.2808/2024 | OA No.2884/2024 | OA No.3415/2024 | OA No.3907/2024 | OA No.4184/2024

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M.K. Bhardwaj
For the Respondents: Dilbag Singh, Rajeev Kumar, Leelawati Suman, Sudarshan Kumar, L.C. Singhvi, Rajpal Singh

Employees have no vested legal right to claim inter-cadre transfer or permanent absorption into a different regional cadre where statutory recruitment rules do not explicitly permit it. Executive instructions regarding transfers cannot supersede or conflict with recruitment rules framed under the Constitution.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 309 - Service Laws - Recruitment Rules - Inter-Commissionerate Transfer (ICT) - Petitioners sought transfer and absorption into different cadres based on executive instructions of 1990 - Executive instructions were subsequently withdrawn by a new policy in 2020 which replaced permanent absorption with a temporary transfer on loan basis - Absence of provision in statutory rules to induct persons by absorption from outside the cadre prevents such transfers - Executive instructions cannot supersede or contradict statutory rules framed under the Constitution - Employees possess no vested legal right to claim transfer or posting of their choice. (Paras 10, 11, 12, 13)

(B) Service Jurisprudence - Transfer as an incident of service - Administrative policy - Judicial review - Courts cannot interfere with policy decisions of the state regarding service conditions unless the policy violates constitutional parameters - Administrative instructions may supplement rules but cannot facilitate actions contrary to the express intent of the rules - Once a new policy is introduced, the right for consideration under old policies does not accrue or continue. (Paras 23, 24, 25, 33, 46)

Facts of the case:
Employees serving in various regional cadres sought transfers and permanent absorption into different zones based on an executive circular dated 14th May 1990. The respondents had withdrawn this circular on 22nd December 2020, replacing it with a policy allowing only temporary transfers on a loan basis under exceptional circumstances. The petitioners challenged the withdrawal and sought directions to enforce the older policy.

Findings of Court:
The Court observed that the recruitment rules governing the employees mandate region-wise cadres and do not provide for absorption of staff from other regions. The executive circular of 1990 had been validly withdrawn and replaced by a new policy which occupies the field. Consequently, the petitioners have no legally enforceable right to seek absorption contrary to the statutory rules.

Issues: Whether employees have a vested legal right to seek inter-cadre transfer and permanent absorption based on withdrawn executive instructions, despite the absence of such provisions in the statutory recruitment rules.

Ratio Decidendi: Statutory recruitment rules framed under the Constitution prevail over executive instructions. Since the relevant rules strictly define cadres as regional units without any provision for absorption of personnel from other cadres, administrative circulars cannot override these rules or confer a right to permanent absorption. Judicial intervention is not warranted when a competent authority replaces an old policy with a new one through a valid administrative decision.

Result: Original Applications dismissed.

Table of Content
1. factual background involving various oas challenging ict policy withdrawal. (Para 1 , 4 , 8)
2. determination of whether applicants possess a vested right to claim ict and absorption. (Para 2 , 3 , 5 , 6 , 9)
3. recruitment rules framed under article 309 supersede executive instructions. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
4. executive authority can withdraw prior circulars and policy decisions. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
5. binding precedent of s.k. naushad rahaman holding that there is no fundamental right to transfer. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30)
6. dismissal of oas based on established legal principles and lack of vested rights. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35)

1. O.A. No. 2045/2024

1. Amiya Kumar,

Serving as Tax Assistant, Group 'C', Aged About 33 Years, S/o Sh. Arun Kumar, R/o B-37, Income Tax Quarters, Income Tax Office, No. 3, Gandhi Road, Salem-636007.

2. Manoj Kumar,

Serving as Tax Assistant, Group 'C', Aged About 36 Years, S/o Sh. Dhani Ram, R/o C-25, Income Tax Quarters, Income Tax Office, No. 3, Gandhi Road, Salem-636007.

3. Rahul Singhal,

Serving as Tax Assistant, Group 'C', Aged About 32 years, S/o Sh. Dinesh Chand Singhal, R/o A-10, Income Tax Quarters, Income Tax Office, No. 3, Gandhi Road, Salem-636007.

4. Anil Kumar Yadav,

Serving as Tax Assistant, Group 'C', Aged About 35 years, S/o Sh. Shriram Yadav, R/o C-30, Income Tax Quarters, Income Tax Office, No. 3, Gandhi Road, Salem-636007.

5. Navin Vashisth,

Serving as Tax Assistant, Group 'C', Aged About 33 years, S/o Sh. Jugal Kishor Vashisth, R/o C-22, Income Tax Quarters, Income Tax Office, No. 3, Gandhi Road, Salem-636007.

6. Danish Ahmad,

Serving as Tax Assistant, Group 'C', Aged About 32 years, S/o Late Sh. Mohammad Aslam, R/o C-23, Income Tax Quarters, Income Tax Office, No. 3, Gandhi Road, Salem-636007

7. Alok Kumar,

Serving as Tax Assistant, Group 'C', Aged About 38 years, S/o Sh. Kishor Kumar, R/o 9E, Kaanchi Block, C.R. Quarters, Anna Nagar, Chennai-600040, Tamil Nadu

8. Amit Kumar,

Serving as Tax Assistant, Group 'C', Aged About 41 years, S/o Sh. Kapil Deo Pandit, R/o GC, Kaanchi Block, Nandavanam, C.R. Quarters, Anna Nagar, 15th Main Road, Chennai-600040.

9. Harish Chandra Verma,

Serving as Tax Assistant, Group 'C', Aged About 33 years, S/o Sh. Kashi Ram, R/o 4E, Kanthal Block, C.R. Quarters, Anna Nagar, Chennai-600040.

10. Dunna Vani,

Serving as Tax Assistant, Group 'C', Aged About 26 years, D/o Sh. Dunna Srinivasa Rao, R/o Income Tax Department, Kuramangala, Bengaluru.

11. Sangitha Siva Gangadhar,

Serving as Tax Assistant, Group 'C', Aged About 33 years, S/o Sh. Sangitha Markandeyulu, R/o Income Tax Department, Fort Ballari, Karnataka.

...Applicants

Versus

1. The Secretary (Revenue), Govt. of India Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi-110001.

2. The Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India, North Block, New Delhi 110001.

3. Pr. Directorate General of Income Tax (HRD), Ministry of Finance, 2nd Floor, Jawahar Lal Nehru Stadium, New Delhi-110014.

4. The Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax No. 3, Tamilnadu & Pondicherry - region 'Aayakar Bhawan' 121, Nungambakkam High Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600034.

5. The Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (Bihar and Jharkhand), Patna, Central Revenue Building, Ist Floor, Birchand Patel Marg, Patna-800001.

6. The Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Revenue Building, No.1, Queens Road, Bengaluru 560 001.

.... Respondents

Advocate for Applicants: Mr. M.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate

Advocate for Respondents: Mr. Dilbag Singh, Sr. CGC

2. O.A. No.2808/2024

1. Girish Tyagi, Serving as Inspector, Group 'C', Aged About 35 Years, S/o Late Sh. Ramotar Tyagi, R/o H. No. 83, Anand Nagar, Kundanpur Linepar, Moradabad, Uttar Pradesh-244001.

2. Rishabh Parashar,

Serving as Inspector, Group 'C', Aged About 31 Years, S/o Late Sh. Narender Kumar Sharma R/o D-326, Upper Ground Floor, Nawada Housing Complex, Dwark

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 6821

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALSanjeeva Kumar, Member (A), Ajay Pratap Singh, Member (J)Amiya Kumar – AppellantVersusSecretary Revenue Govt of India Ministry of Finance – RespondentOA No.2045/2024 | OA No.2808/2024 | OA No.2884/2024 | OA No.3415/2024 | OA No.3907/2024 | OA No.4184/2024

Cases Referred (1)

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Sanjeeva Kumar, Member (A), Ajay Pratap Singh, Member (J)
Amiya Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Secretary Revenue Govt of India Ministry of Finance – Respondent
OA No.2045/2024 | OA No.2808/2024 | OA No.2884/2024 | OA No.3415/2024 | OA No.3907/2024 | OA No.4184/2024