WA/811/2026 of BISWARANJAN MOHANTY Vs UNION OF INDIA on 23 June 2026

ORDER

23.06.2026

02.

1. This intra-Court appeal has been filed invoking Clause 10 of the Letters Patent constituting the High Court of Judicature at Patna read with Article 4 of the Orissa High Court Rules, 1948 seeking intervention in the order dated 22nd May, 2026 passed in WP(C) No.14293 of 2026.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the learned Single Bench has disposed of the aforenoted writ petition, which was filed challenging the transfer order dated 22nd December, 2025, along with batch of writ petitions without examining each individual grievance.

2.1. It is contended that the appellant-petitioner in the writ petition has been suffering from chronic disease, which fact has not been appreciated by the learned Single Bench in its right earnest and as such the writ petition has been dismissed. A direction upon opposite parties is sought for to keep in abeyance the transfer order dated 22nd December, 2025 vide Annexure-1 qua the petitioner for a period of one year.

3. Learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for the respondents referred to the impugned order dated 22nd May, 2026 passed in WP(C) No.14293 of 2026, whereby it is observed that the claim of the petitioner for reconsideration of order of transfer has been duly considered and rejected by a reasoned order.

3.1. It is submitted that in terms of transfer policy, the employees, who have worked for more than three years in the same station, (in the present case, the petitioner has worked for more than 3 years in Bhubaneswar), have been transferred to other places.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for the respondents.

5. Considered the rival contentions and submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. This Court is not oblivious of the notion that transfer is a condition of service and it is within the power of the employer. Interference with such transfers on administrative exigencies by exercising judicial review under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is very limited. It is trite that this Court in exercise of judicial review cannot direct the executive to frame a particular policy. Transfer is a matter of discretion, which is required to be left to the employer. This

Court having perused the pleadings, the petitioner has neither made out any case for mala fide action of the employer nor has he demonstrated arbitrariness in passing order of transfer or consideration of representation.

5.1. A copy of Transfer Order (Amendment) dated 20th May, 2026 has come to be furnished during course of hearing of the present matter. It is apparent from the said document that having taken note of writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No.14293 of 2026 (the instant writ appeal arises out of order dated 22nd May, 2026 passed in said writ petition), the authority reconsidered the grievance of the petitioner and passed amended transfer order on 20th May, 2026, relevant portion of which reads as follows:

“06. And whereas, as per the opinion of Ld. DSGI. DIG(Law) Dte. vide their signal No.J.II.1/2026-DA-9 dated 20/05/2026 has directed to this Dte. to reexamine the representation of the petitioner and decide the same as per Law/Rules/Instruction on subject matter by way of issuing a reasoned & speaking order, so that the same may be apprised the Hon’ble Court on next date of hearing.

07. And whereas, keeping in view of the service condition of combatised member of a Force, it is not possible for a person to be posted continuously in a particular place as it will hamper posting of other eligible personnel who are posted in SOZ/LWE/J&K and waiting for their chance of posting to peace station in their Home State on various grounds after completion of normal tenure.

08. Now therefore, in compliance to the directions of the DIG(Law) Dte, the representation dated 24/12/2025 of the petitioner received through SANTOS has been re- examined in the light of transfer policy S.O.4/2022 and its amendment date 07/10/2025, it has been established that the petitioner has completed more than 3.7 years service at present place of posting. However, his representation/plea for retention of one year in DIG- Range BBSR or transfer to GC BBSR, IG-OS CRPF has been considered sympathetically but rejected being devoid of merit.

09. Ld. CGSC may also be apprised accordingly.

10. The DIG Range BBSR, CRPF to provide a copy of this order to the petitioner and signature in token of having received the same be obtained on the second copy and forward to this Directorate duly attested for our records.”

6. It may be worthwhile to have regard to legal position as enunciated by Court(s) with respect to transfer orders and challenges being made by way of writ petitions.

6.1. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of India Vrs. S.L. Abbas, (1993) 4 SCC 357 observed that:

“6. An order of transfer is an incident of Government service. Fundamental Rule 11 says that “the whole time of a Government servant is at the disposal of the Government which pays him and he may be employed in any manner required by proper authority”. Fundamental Rule 15 says that “the President may transfer a Government servant from one post to another”. That the respondent is liable to transfer anywhere in India is not in dispute. It is not the case of the respondent that the order of his transfer is vitiated by mala fides on the part of the authority making the order, — though the Tribunal does say so merely because certain guidelines issued by the Central Government are not followed, with which finding we shall deal later. The respondent attributed “mischief” to his immediate superior who had nothing to do with his transfer. All he says is that he should not be transferred because his wife is working at Shillong, his children are studying there and also because his health had suffered a setback some time ago. He relies upon certain executive instructions issued by the Government in that behalf. Those instructions are in the nature of guidelines. They do not have statutory force.

7. Who should be transferred where, is a matter for the appropriate authority to decide. Unless the order of transfer is vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any statutory provisions, the court cannot interfere with it. While ordering the transfer, there is no doubt, the authority must keep in mind the guidelines issued by the Government on the subject. Similarly if a person makes any representation with respect to his transfer, the appropriate authority must consider the same having regard to the exigencies of administration. The guidelines say that as far as possible, husband and wife must be posted at the same place. The said guideline however does not confer upon the Government employee a legally enforceable right.”

6.2. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of U.P. Vrs. Gobardhan Lal, (2004) 11 SCC 402 observed that:

“7. It is too late in the day for any government servant to contend that once appointed or posted in a particular place or position, he should continue in such place or position as long as he desires. Transfer of an employee is not only an incident inherent in the terms of appointment but also implicit as an essential condition of service in the absence of any specific indication to the contra, in the law governing or conditions of service. Unless the order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of a mala fide exercise of power or violative of any statutory provision (an Act or Rule) or passed by an authority not competent to do so, an order of transfer cannot lightly be interfered with as a matter of course or routine for any or every type of grievance sought to be made. Even administrative guidelines for regulating transfers or containing transfer policies at best may afford an opportunity to the officer or servant concerned to approach their higher authorities for redress but cannot have the consequence of depriving or denying the competent authority to transfer a particular officer/servant to any place in public interest and as is found necessitated by exigencies of service as long as the official status is not affected adversely and there is no infraction of any career prospects such as seniority, scale of pay and secured emoluments. This Court has often reiterated that the order of transfer made even in transgression of administrative guidelines cannot also be interfered with, as they do not confer any legally enforceable rights, unless, as noticed supra, shown to be vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any statutory provision.”

6.3. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Rajendra Roy Vrs. Union of India, (1993) 1 SCC 148 observed as follows:

“7. After considering the respective contentions of the parties, it appears to us that the appellant has not been able to substantiate that the impugned order of transfer was passed mala fide against him for an oblique purpose and/or for wreaking vengeance against him because respondent 2 was anxious to get rid of him and he seized the opportunity of transferring him from Delhi to Calcutta by transferring Shri Patra back to Orissa from Calcutta. It is true that the order of transfer often causes a lot of difficulties and dislocation in the family set-up of the concerned employees but on that score the order of transfer is not liable to be struck down. Unless

such order is passed mala fide or in violation of the rules of service and guidelines for transfer without any proper justification, the Court and the Tribunal should not interfere with the order of transfer. In a transferable post an order of transfer is a normal consequence and personal difficulties are matters for consideration of the department. We are in agreement with the Central Administrative Tribunal that the appellant has not been able to lay any firm foundation to substantiate the case of malice or mala fide against the respondents in passing the impugned order of transfer. It does not appear to us that the appellant has been moved out just to get rid of him and the impugned order of transfer was passed mala fide by seizing an opportunity to transfer Shri Patra to Orissa from Calcutta. It may not be always possible to establish malice in fact in a straight-cut manner. In an appropriate case, it is possible to draw reasonable inference of mala fide action from the pleadings and antecedent facts and circumstances. But for such inference there must be firm foundation of facts pleaded and established. Such inference cannot be drawn on the basis of insinuation and vague suggestions. In this case, we are unable to draw any inference of mala fide action in transferring the appellant from the facts pleaded before the Tribunal. It appears that Shri Patra was transferred to Calcutta and after joining the post he had made representation on account of personal hardship. Such representation was considered and a decision was taken to transfer him back to Orissa region. As a result, a necessity arose to transfer an employee to Calcutta to replace Shri Patra. It cannot be reasonably contended by the appellant that he should have been spared and some one else should have been transferred. The appellant has not made any representation about personal hardship to the department. As such there was no occasion for the department to consider such representation. This appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed but we make no order as to costs. It is, however, made clear that the appellant will be free to make representation to the concerned department about personal hardship, if any, being suffered by the appellant in view of the impugned order. It is reasonably expected that if such representation is made, the same should be considered by the department as expeditiously as practicable.”

6.4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Airports Authority of India Vrs. Rajeev Ratan Pandey, (2009) 13 Addl. SCR 343 laid down that:

5. In the case of State of U.P. Vrs. Gobardhan Lal, (2004) 11 SCC 402 while dealing with a matter of transfer, this Court observed that allegations of mala fides must inspire confidence of the Court and ought not to be entertained on the mere asking of it or on consideration borne out of conjectures or surmises and except for strong and convincing reasons, no interference would ordinarily be made with an order of transfer. That the burden of proving mala fides is on a person leveling such allegations and the burden is heavy, admits of no legal ambiguity. Mere assertion or bald statement is not enough to discharge the heavy burden that the law imposes upon the person leveling allegations of mala fides; it must be supported by requisite materials. In the present case, as noticed above, at the threshold, no allegations of mala fides have been pleaded in the writ petition. It is only by way of a supplementary affidavit that allegations of mala fides have been put forth by the Respondent No. 1 but even such allegations are not supported by any material whatsoever. In a matter such as the present one where plea of mala fides is not made in the writ petition and the assertion of mala fides is made for the first time in a supplementary affidavit which too is not supported by any convincing and cogent material, the plea of mala fides hardly deserved acceptance, prima facie, justifying stay of operation of a transfer order. The High Court has referred to a decision of this Court in the case of Arvind Dattatraya Dhande Vrs. State of Maharashtra (1997) 6 SCC 169 but in what we have said above, that decision cannot be applied to the facts of the present case. In the writ petition, the transfer order has been assailed by the present Respondent No. 1 on the sole ground that it was violative of. transfer policy framed by the appellant. The High Court, did not, even find any contravention of transfer policy in transferring the Respondent No. 1 from Lucknow to Calicut. In a matter of transfer of a Government employee, scope of judicial review is limited and High Court would not interfere with an order of transfer lightly, be it at interim stage or final hearing. This is so because the courts do not substitute their own decision in the matter of transfer. In the present case, High Court fell into a grave error in staying the transfer order which, if allowed to stand, may cause prejudice to the administrative functioning of the appellant.”

6.5. It is well settled that Courts should be loathe to interfere in the matters of transfer; more so when the authority concerned has taken a view upon reconsideration of the representation of the petitioner. Interference with transfer orders at the drop of a hat completely dislocates the administrative functions of the Department, that too a disciplined organization as that of in the present case, i.e., Central Reserve Police Force, where much greater latitude is required to be accorded to the authorities concerned to decide on the posting of various persons.

7. Having thus considered, this Court does not find any merit to show indulgence in the order dated 20th May, 2026 passed in

W.P.(C) No.14293 of 2026 by the learned Single Judge, particularly so the document submitted by the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India depicts that the authority concerned has re-examined the case of the petitioner vide representation dated 24.12.2025 in the light of transfer policy being S.O. No.4/2022 as amended on 07.10.2025. In the considered opinion of this Court the view expressed by the authority on consideration of representation of the petitioner ought not to be intermeddled.

8. In the result, this writ appeal stands dismissed. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated. As a result of disposal of the writ appeal, all pending Interlocutory Application(s), shall stand disposed of. (Harish Tandon) Chief Justice (M.S. Raman) Judge MRS/Laxmikant Digitally Signed Signed by: LAXMIKANT MOHAPATRA Designation: SENIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 24-Jun-2026 19:18:16 Signature Not Verified