THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.28553 OF 2025

JUDGMENT:

(Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili)

This Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by the order, dated

16.09.2025, passed in O.A.No.909 of 2025 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (Telangana) (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), in not granting the interim relief sought by the petitioner.

2. Heard Sri P.V. Krishnaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that he was working as Additional Chief Health Director with the respondent-railways at Central Hospital, Lalaguda, Secunderabad. While so, he was transferred to Guntakal Division vide proceedings, dated 10.09.2025. As the said transfer order was passed by incompetent authority and contrary to the transfer policy, the petitioner has challenged the same before the Tribunal by filing the subject O.A.No.909 of 2025. The Tribunal vide impugned order, dated 16.09.2025, has ordered notice, however, declined to grant any interim relief.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner had contended that if the transfer of the petitioner is not stayed till the stay application is considered by the Tribunal, the petitioner would be put to irreparable loss and hardship and that the purpose of filing the subject O.A. would be defeated. Leaned counsel further contended that the Tribunal ought to have stayed the transfer order till the stay application is adjudicated by it. Learned counsel further contended that if the Tribunal was not satisfied with the case of the petitioner, it ought to have dismissed the subject O.A. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the Writ Petition by granting stay of the transfer order, dated 10.09.2025, at least till the Tribunal takes up the stay application.

5. On the other hand, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 had contended that the petitioner was working in the same station since 19 years and as per the transfer policy, an employee can be continued at the same station for a period of 10 years only. This fact was appreciated by the Tribunal and the Tribunal has declined to grant interim relief to the petitioner. Therefore, there are no merits in the Writ Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

6. This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, is of the considered view that, vide impugned order, dated 16.09.2025, the Tribunal has ordered notice. The Tribunal was of the view that interim relief cannot be considered till reply is filed and on that ground, the Tribunal has declined to grant interim relief to the petitioner. The Tribunal ought to have granted interim relief as balance of convenience lies in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, this Court is of the view that ends of justice would be met if the transfer order, dated 10.09.2025, is suspended till such time the Tribunal adjudicates the interim stay application of the petitioner, and accordingly, the same is suspended. Since the transfer order is under challenge before the Tribunal, the Tribunal is directed to dispose of the stay application, as expeditiously as possible, without being influenced by any of the observations made by this Court.

7. With the above observations/directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed.

_________________________________

ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J ___________________________________

VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, J Date: 19.09.2025 Bj/MD