M K SARANGI vs REVENUE on 1 October 2026

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PATNA Order Sheet Item no.: 14 M.A./343/2026 (PATNA) [ STAY ] In O.A./273/2026 TRANSFER M.A./290/2026 STAY Court No.: 1 No of Adjournment: 7 Order Dated: 01/10/2026 M K SARANGI Vs REVENUE

For Applicant(s) Advocate : Mr. M.P. Dixit For Respondent(s) Advocate : Mr. T.N. Thakur, Sr. CGSC Order of The Tribunal Counsels for both the parties are present. Counsel for the applicant has mentioned that by way of supplementary petition dt. 17.07.2026 the applicant has submitted that although he has joined at transferred place of posting (Ahmedabad) in compliance of his transfer order dt. 30.04.2026 yet according to transfer guideline of 2018, para 11.4, he may be sent back to his previous place of posting at Patna, where his children and other members of family reside. The applicant, in compliance of the order passed by the competent authority on 30.04.2026, has joined at the place of his transfer, that is, as DGST at Ahmedabad on 14.07.2026 after relieving from the office of CGST and CX Ranchi Zone Patna.

According to para 2 of the above order dated 30.04.2026, the opposite parties/ competent authorities were under an obligation to consider the representation of the applicant with regard to his retention at Patna, which is based upon para 11.4 of the transfer guidelines dated 18.05.2026. After joining at Ahmedabad, the applicant has sent his representation dated 15.07.2026, but the same has not been considered by the authority concerned. Counsel for the opposite party has submitted that such representation has to be considered by the Board/Placement Committee as, according to para 14.1 of the transfer guidelines. He further submitted that according to the letter of the Under Secretary of the Government of India dated 22.09.2026, the Board was constituted and, due to administrative pre-occupations and schedule constraints of the erstwhile members of the Placement Committee, the representation of the applicant could not be taken up for consideration earlier, and the constitution of the Placement Committee ended in the first week of September. Further, the representation of applicant shall be placed before the new Placement Committee for consideration. Counsel for the applicant has vehemently objected the argument of counsel for opposite party and submitted that the competent authorities/ opposite parties are bent upon to linger the consideration of the applicant's representation so that the academic session of his children’s examination will be completed, thereafter the authority may easily reject the representation of applicant, which is for request that he may be retained at Patna Office till academic session 2026-2027 only. In fact the applicant does not want that his transfer order be cancelled. He only wants that he may be retained till the academic session 2026-27 of his children's education. It is only due to the reason that his twin children are studying in Class 12, and for the consideration of aforesaid fact, the applicant has already moved his representation to the department before taking the charge at Ahmedabad. After taking over the charge at Ahmedabad on 15.07.2026, he again moved his representation to the department. His grievance is genuine, bonafide and in accordance with transfer policy guideline of 2026. Ld. counsel further submitted that it has not been made clear that under which circumstances, his representation could not be considered by the Placement Committee, which was functional till the first week of September. Whereas it is well within the knowledge of the opposite party that this is the crucial year for his children’s career, who are studying in Class 12. They need the guidance as well as motivation from their father to perform their best in the final examination of Class 12th. He further submitted that this is also well known to the opposite parties that the matter is still pending before this bench of Central Administrative Tribunal. The applicant does not want that his transfer order be cancelled permanently. Despite the above situation, the opposite parties have knowingly not taken up the representation of applicant for consideration in the aforesaid meeting of the Placement Committee which was functional till first week of month September. Counsel for the opposite party further submitted that the authorities have decided that the representation of the applicant shall be decided finally within 6 weeks by the competent authority/Placement Committee. Having considered the above grievance and submission of the counsel for applicant and reply of the counsel for opposite party. The course of action of applicant is still surviving as per relief sought by applicant in para 8.2 of O.A. hence, we direct the Board/Placement Committee/competent authority to consider and decide the representation of the applicant as a first case in its next meeting positively and within 6 weeks from today, strictly in accordance with the Transfer/Placement Guidelines, 2018/ effective in the matter. List this case on 18.11.2026. Justice Narendra Kumar Johari Member (J) Durgesh Uttam ( court master )