Anshul Badholiya vs WESTERN RAILWAY on 8 October 2026

1. Union of India, Notice to be served through, General Manager, Western Railway, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020.

Divisional Railway Manager (E), Western Railway, Divisional Office, Ashrwa, Ahmedabad-380 0019.

3. Divisional Railway Manager, Civil Lines, West Central Railway (WCR), Jabalpur, MP 482001 .…..Respondents (By Advocate:Shri H.D.Shukla) O R D E R (ORAL) Per : Hon’ble Shri Jayesh V.Bhairavia, Member (J)

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the material available on record.

2. At the request of learned counsel for the parties, the matter was taken up for final hearing. It was pointed out that the No Objection Certificate (NOC) issued in favour of the applicant was due to expire P ANUKUMA

on 08.10.2026, i.e., on the date of hearing. Accordingly, the matter was taken up for consideration.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is working as a Helper in the Carriage and Wagon (C&W) Department of the Western Railway and had submitted an application seeking Inter-Railway Request Transfer from Ahmedabad to Jabalpur in accordance with the policy in vogue. The request was duly processed by the respondent authorities and accepted by the receiving unit at Jabalpur. Consequently, an NOC dated 08.10.2025 was issued in favour of the applicant.

4. It was further submitted that, under the applicable policy, the NOC remains valid for a period of one year. The Railway authorities maintain a priority list of employees seeking Inter-Railway Request Transfer through the Human Resource Management System (HRMS). The applicant's name stands at Serial No. 1 in the relevant priority list, as is evident from the record maintained by the Railway authorities and the document placed at Annexure A/2 to the Original Application.

5. Learned counsel further submitted that, as reflected in the relevant HRMS record, the case of the applicant was processed by the Unit Head on 29.06.2026 for obtaining approval to relieve him pursuant to the aforesaid NOC. However, the proposal has not been approved by the competent authority, namely, the Divisional Railway Manager (Establishment), Ahmedabad, Western Railway, till date.

6. It was contended that the Unit Head/Cadre Controlling Authority had already initiated and processed the proposal for relieving the applicant. The proposal, bearing ID No.7756, was thereafter forwarded to the competent authority for approval. Despite the requisite processing at the departmental level, no final decision has been taken for reasons which have not been satisfactorily explained.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the continued pendency of the proposal, despite the applicant being placed at Serial No. 1 in the priority list and having obtained the requisite NOC from the receiving unit, has deprived him of the benefit of the applicable Inter-Railway Transfer Policy. The applicant has, therefore, approached this Tribunal seeking appropriate directions to the respondents to relieve him pursuant to the NOC.

8. Upon issuance of notice by this Tribunal, the respondents filed their reply. P ANUKUMA

9. Shri H.D. Shukla, learned counsel for the respondents, fairly submitted that there is no dispute regarding the applicant's name being placed at Serial No. 1 in the priority list for Inter-Railway Request Transfer. However, he submitted that approval or sanction for relieving the applicant has not yet been accorded by the competent authority.

10. Learned counsel for the respondents invited our attention to the prevailing vacancy position in the C&W cadre. It was submitted that, against the sanctioned strength of 1,024 posts, the available working strength and the resultant vacancies reflect a substantial shortage of manpower in the cadre. According to the respondents, the shortage is approximately 43 per cent, and the existing vacancies are required to be addressed through direct recruitment against panels to be received from the Railway Recruitment Board (RRB)/Railway Recruitment Cell (RRC). It was also submitted that no fresh panel had recently been received from the RRB/RRC.

11. Learned counsel further submitted that the Railway administration has proposed the creation of approximately 4,377 non- gazetted posts to cater to the additional workload arising from new assets and facilities, including the Vatva Mega Coaching Terminal, ICD-SVI and Vande Bharat-related facilities. In support of these submissions, reliance was placed upon the vacancy position chart produced as Annexure R/4 to the reply. Learned counsel for the respondents also referred to Railway Board instructions contained in RBE No. 22/2023 dated 16.04.2025, concerning the processing of Inter-Railway Request Transfer applications. It was submitted that the instructions prescribe conditions and thresholds relating to the availability of manpower in the concerned cadre before employees are relieved pursuant to transfer requests, including cases in which an NOC or an order from the receiving unit has already been obtained.

12. In this regard, learned counsel referred to the illustrative provision concerning a prescribed vacancy threshold of 10%, under which the forwarding or relieving of employees on transfer would be permissible only when the vacancy position in the concerned cadre falls below the prescribed threshold. The underlying rationale, according to the respondents, is to ensure that the transfer of employees does not adversely affect the operational requirements of the cadre concerned.

13. Learned counsel further referred to divisional instructions stated to have been issued in November 2025 concerning the processing of Inter-Railway and Inter-Divisional Transfer applications in certain P ANUKUMA

safety-related cadres. It was submitted that the competent authorities had considered a proposed reduction in the permissible vacancy threshold to 5%, as against the existing threshold reflected in the HRMS. However, pending further instructions from the Railway Board, the existing threshold was stated to have been continued. On the strength of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the respondents contended that, in view of the substantial shortage of manpower in the C&W cadre, it would not be feasible to accord approval for relieving the applicant at this stage.

14. Learned counsel for the respondents also placed reliance upon the order passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 265/2026 dated 13.07.2026. It was submitted that, in an identical matter, the Tribunal had directed the respondents to consider the request of the applicant therein for relieving him pursuant to the NOC, in accordance with the applicable Railway Board circulars and instructions, and to decide the pending representation.

15. It was further submitted that the applicant in the present case had submitted a representation dated 16.09.2026 requesting that he be relieved pursuant to the NOC. According to the respondents, the representation would be considered and decided in accordance with the applicable rules and instructions.

16. In response, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the instructions relied upon by the respondents, including those relating to vacancy thresholds in safety-related cadres, are not applicable to the applicant in the manner sought to be suggested by the respondents. It was contended that the applicant is working as a Helper in the C&W Department and that his case is required to be considered with reference to the applicable provisions governing his cadre. Learned counsel submitted that the authorities responsible for maintaining the relevant seniority and priority lists are required to process the applicant's case in accordance with the policy applicable to his department.

16. Learned counsel further submitted that the competent departmental authority had already initiated the process for relieving the applicant pursuant to the NOC. Despite the proposal having been processed and forwarded for approval, the competent authority has not taken a final decision. The applicant, therefore, cannot be made to suffer indefinitely on account of administrative inaction, particularly when his name stands at Serial No. 1 in the priority list and the NOC issued by the receiving unit is nearing expiry. P ANUKUMA

17. Learned counsel for the applicant placed particular reliance upon the order passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 283/2026 dated 24.08.2026. It was submitted that, in the said matter involving similarly situated employees, the Tribunal had directed the respondents to issue the relieving order forthwith.

18. It was further brought to our notice that the respondents have challenged the aforesaid order before the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in Special Civil Application No. 13323/2026, in the case of Union of India & Others v. Vaibhav Kumar. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that no stay of the Tribunal's order had been granted by the Hon'ble High Court. The matter was stated to be listed for consideration on 09.10.2026.

19. We have considered the rival submissions and carefully examined the material available on record.

20. At the outset, it is not in dispute that the applicant's name stands at Serial No. 1 in the priority list maintained for Inter-Railway Request Transfer. It is also not in dispute that an NOC dated 08.10.2025 was issued in favour of the applicant by the receiving unit at Jabalpur and that the applicant's case was processed at the departmental level for the purpose of relieving him. The record, as referred to by learned counsel for the applicant, further indicates that the proposal for relieving the applicant was processed on 29.06.2026 and forwarded to the competent authority under ID No. 7756. Nevertheless, the requisite approval has not been accorded till date. The applicant has also submitted a representation dated 16.09.2026 requesting that he be relieved pursuant to the aforesaid NOC.

21. The principal justification advanced by the respondents for not relieving the applicant is the shortage of manpower in the concerned cadre and the instructions governing the processing of Inter-Railway Transfer requests. While the operational requirements of the Railway administration and the availability of manpower are relevant considerations, the applicant's request is nevertheless required to be considered in accordance with the policy applicable to his cadre and the facts of his individual case.

22. In the present matter, the applicant has been placed at Serial No. 1 in the priority list, the NOC has already been issued by the receiving unit, and the proposal for relieving him has been processed at the departmental level. Despite these circumstances, the matter has remained pending before the competent authority without a final decision being communicated to the applicant. P ANUKUMA

23. We also take note of the submission advanced on behalf of the applicant that the instructions relied upon by the respondents pertain to particular vacancy thresholds and cadres and that their applicability to the applicant's post in the C&W Department requires consideration in the context of the governing policy. The mere reference to a general shortage of manpower, without bringing the applicant's case to a conclusion in accordance with the applicable instructions, cannot justify keeping the matter pending indefinitely.

24. We have also taken note of the order passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 283/2026 dated 24.08.2026, upon which reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the applicant. The respondents have stated that the said order has been challenged before the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in SCA No. 13323/2026. However, as represented before us, no order staying the operation of the Tribunal's order has been brought to our notice.

25. Having regard to the undisputed placement of the applicant at Serial No. 1 in the priority list, the issuance of the NOC by the receiving unit, the processing of the proposal at the departmental level, and the continued pendency of the matter before the competent authority, we are of the considered view that the applicant has made out a prima facie case for appropriate relief.

26. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, and particularly in view of the NOC dated 08.10.2025 and its stated expiry on 08.10.2026, we find that further delay in taking action on the applicant's case would cause undue prejudice to him.

27. In view of the foregoing discussion, the Original Application is allowed in the following terms:

(i) The respondents are directed to relieve the applicant forthwith, i.e., on the date of this order, pursuant to the NOC dated 08.10.2025 issued by the receiving unit at Jabalpur.

(ii) The competent authority shall ensure immediate compliance with this direction. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents is directed to communicate this order to the concerned authority forthwith so that the relieving order may be issued without any further delay.

(iii) The respondents shall take the consequential steps necessary to give effect to the applicant's Inter-Railway Request P ANUKUMA

Transfer in accordance with the applicable rules and instructions. In view of the above directions, all pending MAs, if any, stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

(Sanjiv Kumar) (Jayesh V Bhairavia) Member (A) Member (J)

SKV P ANUKUMA