Shortage of Officers No Justification for Denying Inter-Cadre Transfer on Marriage Grounds Under Rule 5 of IFS (Cadre) Rules, 1966: Central Administrative Tribunal - 2025-08-06

Officer Shortage No Excuse to Deny Inter-Cadre Transfer on Marriage Grounds, Rules CAT

New Delhi: The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench, has ruled that an acute shortage of officers is not a tenable ground for a state government to withhold a No Objection Certificate (NOC) for an All India Service officer seeking an inter-cadre transfer on marriage grounds. The Tribunal directed the West Bengal government to issue an NOC to an Indian Forest Service (IFoS) officer within two weeks, establishing a "deemed" NOC if the deadline is missed.

The bench, comprising Hon’ble Mr. R.N. Singh (Judicial Member) and Hon’ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap (Administrative Member), emphasized that the policy for inter-cadre transfers aims to uphold family life, and compelling officers to litigate for their rights is not expected from a model employer.

Background of the Case

The case was brought by Raja M, an IFoS officer of the 2020 batch allocated to the West Bengal cadre. He sought a transfer to the Kerala cadre following his marriage to Ms. Devipriya Ajith, an IFoS officer of the 2022 batch from the Kerala cadre.

In line with the Department of Personnel and Training (DoP&T) guidelines, the applicant made a representation for his transfer. The Government of Kerala promptly issued its NOC on December 31, 2024. Subsequently, the Union Ministry of Environment, Forests & Climate Change (Respondent No. 1) requested the Government of West Bengal (Respondent No. 2) to provide its consent and vigilance clearance. However, despite a reminder, the West Bengal government failed to act, leading the applicant to approach the CAT.

Arguments Presented

Applicant's Position: The applicant, represented by Advocate Sh. M.K. Bhardwaj, argued that the inaction by West Bengal was illegal and discriminatory. Key arguments included: -

The transfer request is permissible under Rule 5 of the Indian Forest Service (Cadre) Rules, 1966, and the consolidated DoP&T guidelines. -

The State of Kerala has already granted its NOC. -

The ground of "shortage of officers" has been repeatedly rejected by the Tribunal and the Delhi High Court in similar cases. -

Denying the NOC violates Article 14 of the Constitution, as other similarly situated officers have been granted transfers.

Respondents' Position: -

The Union Government (Respondent No. 1) stated it was unable to process the transfer without the NOC and vigilance clearance from West Bengal. -

The Government of West Bengal (Respondent No. 2) , represented by Advocate Sh. Chanchal Kumar Ganguli, contended that an acute shortage of IFoS officers constrained it from issuing the NOC. It stated its cadre strength was only 95 against a sanctioned strength of 126, with several officers on training or deputation. The State also argued that the officer's spouse could seek a transfer to West Bengal instead and that the OA was premature as no final order had been passed.

Tribunal's Analysis and Reliance on Precedents

The Tribunal systematically dismantled the arguments of the West Bengal government, relying heavily on established legal precedents. It noted that the State's primary defense—officer shortage—was "no more tenable."

The bench cited a series of judgments where the Delhi High Court had dismissed West Bengal's appeals on identical grounds, including: -

State of West Bengal vs. Gandharva Rathore & Ors. (2021) -

Govt. of West Bengal vs Shri Arsh Verma & Ors. (2022)

In the Arsh Verma case, the High Court had observed that "the right to a healthy family life, to start a family and the right to parenthood have to be respected" and that the "urgency of... starting a family... cannot wait indefinitely."

The Tribunal quoted a landmark Supreme Court judgment in S K Nausad Rahaman & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2022) , which highlighted that the State, in crafting its policies, "cannot be heard to say that it will be oblivious to basic constitutional values, including the preservation of family life which is an incident of Article 21."

Pivotal Excerpt from the Judgment: "We record that despite identical matters decided by this Tribunal in a number of cases which have been upheld by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi and implemented by the respondents, the respondent no. 2 has compelled the applicant to approach this Tribunal which is not expected from a model employer/State."

The Tribunal held that the choice of which spouse seeks the transfer lies with the officers, and the State cannot dictate this decision. It also dismissed the preliminary objection regarding maintainability, confirming that an application against administrative inaction is tenable.

Final Decision and Implications

The CAT allowed the Original Application, issuing a series of directives:

1. The Government of West Bengal must issue the NOC to the applicant within two weeks .

2. Failing this, the NOC shall be deemed to have been issued .

3. The Union Government must then process the cadre transfer to Kerala within four weeks of receiving the NOC.

4. Once the transfer is ordered, West Bengal must relieve the officer within two weeks , failing which he will be considered "deemed to have been relieved."

This judgment reinforces the legal position that administrative exigencies like staff shortages cannot override the established policy facilitating the unification of families of All India Service officers. It serves as a strong reminder to state governments to adhere to judicial precedents and act in a timely manner on such sensitive matters.