Once a transfer and seniority have been accepted and acted upon, they cannot be revoked without valid and cogent reasons; prolonged administrative actions create an expectation of stability.

JUDGMENT

MADHU JAIN, J.

1. This petition has been filed, challenging the Order dated 02.07.2008 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as, the ‘Tribunal’) in O.A. No. 284/2008, titled Chandransh Pandey v. Union of India & Ors., whereby the learned Tribunal dismissed the said O.A. filed by the petitioner herein, with the following directions:

“17. It is settled proposition of law that there is no arbitrariness in rectifying of an administrative error which can or do occur. It has been clearly brought out by learned counsel for respondents that entire matter was result of administrative error which has being admitted by the DRM, Jhansi. Thus, as the applicant was neither required nor eligible to exercise his option which in fact is the foundation of his claim, the entire structure built by him on that foundation is necessarily rendered infructuous. It may not be out of place to observe that there would appear to be some basis in the submissions of the respondents that applicant managed/ manipulated to have his option and transfer to Delhi Division. In fact after completion of deputation with CRIS, he should have reported back to his parent Division which was not Delhi where he reported. It cannot be that applicant was unaware of the relevant Rules/instructions/guidelines. Again, such instances can and do occasionally occur particularly in large Departments like Railways and on occasions such as merger of cadres /transfers/re-organizationof zones etc. 18. Resultantly, applicant's claim being not only misplaced but misconceived and without any justification deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, present OA is dismissed. No costs.”

BRIEF FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE:

2. The petitioner was initially appointed as an Electrical Signal Maintainer (‘ESM’), B Grade on 22.12.1983 in the Indian Railways and was subsequently promoted to the post of Junior Engineer Grade-

II (Signal) on 04.07.1988.

3. In April 2000, the petitioner applied for and proceeded on deputation to the Centre for Railway Information Systems (‘CRIS’) for a period of five years, commencing from 25.04.2000, while holding lien with the Jhansi Division.

4. During the period of petitioner’s deputation, the Railway Administration undertook a large-scale reorganisation involving the creation of new Zones and Divisions, including restructuring of the Northern and North Central Railways. In this context, options were invited from employees of affected divisions for allocation to the newly constituted or reorganised divisions.

5. It is the case of the petitioner that in pursuance of the Railway Board’s instructions dated 06.12.1996 and the subsequent notifications dated 14.11.2002 and 15.11.2002 to set up new Railway Zones, options were invited from the non-gazetted staff of the affected divisions, including Jhansi Division for allocation to Agra Division, Jhansi Division or the Delhi Division. The petitioner, being an employee of the Jhansi Division, exercised his option for allocation to the Delhi Division of Northern Railway on formation of new Railway Zone of North Central Railway at Allahabad. His option was duly forwarded by Jhansi Division vide letter dated 26.11.2002 for appropriate action and was accepted along with the options of other employees.

6. Thereafter, vide letter dated 03.12.2002, the Divisional Railway Manager (Personnel), Jhansi again called upon all concerned employees of Jhansi Division to s