Udai Pratap Singh vs M/O DEFENCE on 26 October 2026

O R D E R

Per: Hon’ble Shri Santosh Mehra ……Member(A) Through this OA, the applicant has sought the following reliefs: “(a) Issue Direction to the Respondents of applicants vide representation dated-07.11.2025 Annexure A-13 to the places of choices exercised by applicants Kanpur/Lucknow/Delhi, where the vacancies of the Gardener/Mali posts available as per RTI information dated-02.02.2026 & 03.02.2026 Annexure A-15. KOMAL RANI

KOMA L RANI

(b) Or alternatively Direct the respondents to retain the applicants at ASC Center North Bengaluru 560007 and utilize them as Gardener/Mali in the existing vacancies. As per RTI information dated 4.2.2026, A-15.

(c) Grant any other relief as deemed fit into the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice & Equity.

2. The facts in a nutshell are as follows: According to the learned counsel for the applicants, the two applicants were selected for the post of gardener and posted in ASC Centre, Bengaluru from 31.03.2014 and 01.07.2013 respectively. Subsequently, the various trades in ASC including that of gardener (Mali) were clubbed together and redesignated as MTS with effect from 07.10.2013. The applicants submitted several representations to transfer them to the places where the vacancies for the post of gardener were available. However, despite availability of such vacancies, the respondents refused to consider the repeated requests of the applicants and hence, they have approached this Tribunal for relief.

3. Applicant

(i) The learned counsel for the applicants submits that the two applicants were selected and posted as Gardeners, after undergoing the due process of recruitment, with effect from 31.03.2014 and 01.07.2013 respectively. Subsequently, vide notification dated 07.10.2013, all the different trades of Group D Posts like Roneo Operator, Jamadar Messenger/Jamadar Peon, Gardener/Mali etc were merged and given a common designation of Multi Tasking Staff (MTS). KOMAL RANI

KOMA L RANI

(ii) The learned counsel for the applicants avers that the applicants submitted a representation dated 16.07.2024 to the respondent no. 3 requesting for information on action being taken after abolition of all the trades and their merger and redesignation as MTS. The respondents replied to the representation vide letter no. 4033/PE/CIV dated 29.07.2024 (Annexure A-5), informing the applicants that the case for revision of PE with respect to ASC Centre (North)- 1 ATC had been taken up with the higher formation and the applicants will be intimated, regarding further developments, if any, as and when received. Subsequently, the applicants repeatedly sought information under RTI Act, 2005 from the respondents to which they received replies vide letters dated 15.11.2025, 18.11.2025 and 17.12.2025 (Annexures A 6 to 8). In these replies, the respondents essentially reiterated that the merger of different trades has been carried out and they were all redesignated as MTS.

(iii) The learned counsel for the applicants further submits that as they were not satisfied with the above cited responses received under RTI Act from the respondents, the applicants submitted repeated representations on 02.08.2025, 18.08.2025, 25.08.2025, 26.08.2025, 03.09.2025 and 06.09.2025 (Annexure A-

9) reiterating their requests for transfer to places against vacancies of gardeners. In response to these repeated representations, the respondents issued a Warning: Order of Disobedience to applicant no. 2 (Annexure A-10), dated 12.09.2025.

(iv) The learned counsel for the applicants points out that the respondents displayed the Notification regarding merger of trades in MTS vide DGST(ST-

12) (Civ), IHQ of MOD (Army) letter no 78403/2/Q/ST-12 (Civ) dated 08.09.2023, after a gap of almost six months as part of the Daily Order Part II KOMAL RANI

KOMA L RANI

vide Order no 17/2024/Civ/ dated 23.02.2024. The learned counsel for the applicants continues that the applicants submitted further representations dated 07.11.2025 (Annexure A-13) and 15.11.2025 (Annexure A-14) and applicant no. 1 also submitted a representation dated 17.09.2025 to respondent no. 3 (Annexure A-11). This was followed by RTI Applications dated 09.01.2026 and 13.01.2026 by the two applicants. The learned counsel for the applicants avers that based on the above RTI Applications, the respondents furnished reply vide letter dated 04.02.2026, 02.02.2026 and 03.02.2026 in which they accepted availability of several posts of Malis, at certain places.

(v) The learned counsel for the applicants argues that though there were clear vacancies of Mali as revealed by RTI replies from the respondents, which indicate that the posts and jobs of gardeners were existing and though the applicants had given their option for the same, their request for transfer to such places have not been considered.

(vi) The learned counsel for the applicants further points out the Integrated HQ of MOD of (Army) vide letter dated 19.11.2014, instructed all units stating that “In case, trade of the individual employee category is indispensable to be reflected, the same should be reflected in the bracket after the nomenclature viz MTS (name of the post/Trade)”. This indicates that the erstwhile trades were still in existence, though they were redesignated as MTS.

(vii) He further argues the fact that the earlier trades/posts were still existing as recently as in June 2023, is also reflected from the letter of the Integrated HQ KOMAL RANI

KOMA L RANI

of MOD (Army) dated 01.06.2023, which issued instructions to redesignate all trades as MTS, in accordance with DOPT OM dated 30.04.2010.

(viii) The learned counsel for the applicants concludes by stating that though the gardener/Mali post is available at ASC Center Lucknow (eleven posts), Dogra Regiment, Ayodhya Cantt (one post), Rajput Regiment (one post) and the applicants had exercised their option for the same, their requests have not been considered.

4. Reply The learned counsel for the Respondents has filed the reply.

(i) The learned counsel for the respondents submits that Applicants No. 1 and 2 were selected for the post of Gardener and appointed at ASC Center (North) on 31.03.2014 and 01.07.2013 respectively. The two applicants, along with seven other similarly placed employees gave a representation dated 17.07.2024 requesting for information regarding action being taken on all the trades being merged under the umbrella of MTS. These signatories were given a proper reply by ASC Center (North) vide letter no. 4033/PE/CIV dated 29.07.2024 which stated that their case has been taken up by Peace Establishment (PE) with higher Headquarters and they would be communicated further updates if any, in due course of time. He further points out that other than the two applicants in this case, all other signatories were satisfied with the briefing given to them by the Officer Commanding on 02.08.2025.

(ii) The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the representations of the applicants were duly replied by the respondents vide letter dated KOMAL RANI

KOMA L RANI

29.07.2024 and RTI replies dated 15.11.2025, 18.11.2025 and 17.12.2025. The applicants were informed that the adjustment and allotment of manpower was under progress and a copy of letter of Government of India, Ministry of Defence vide letter no. 78403/2/Q/ST-12 (Civ) dated 07.10.2013 was also furnished to them. It was reiterated to them that all the trades have been merged under the umbrella of MTS. They were also informed that the relevant orders including DOPT OM No. AB-14017/6/2009-Estt (RR) dated 30.04.2010 were widely available on the website www.Pers.Min.Gov.in. They were also clearly informed that mutual transfer for the post which fall under MTS GP was possible on compassionate grounds under AO 12/2020/MP-4. However, the applicants had not exercised this option and have not given any representation.

(iii) The learned counsel for the respondents points out that ASC Centre (North) regularly convenes meeting of the Board of Officers which considers all representations for compassionate postings received from Civilian Group ‘C’ and ‘D’ Employees.

(iv) Responding to the contention of the learned counsel for the applicants that Warning: Order of Disobedience was issued to the applicant for repeated representations, the learned counsel for the respondents points out that it was issued to Applicant No. 2 for refusing to comply with the administrative requirement of signing the interview register after Applicant No. 2 was interviewed on 06.09.2025.

(v) The learned counsel for the respondents reiterates that as per Directorate General of Supplies & Transport, Quartermaster General's Branch, Integrated KOMAL RANI

KOMA L RANI

Headquarters of Ministry of Defence (Army) letter No 78403/2/Q/ST-12 (Civ) dated 08 Sep 2023, the trade of Gardener has been merged into Multi-Tasking Staff (MTS). Accordingly, no separate Gardener trade exists, and the applicants are now part of a common Multi-Tasking Staff (MTS) pool. As ASC Centre (North) itself is facing a deficiency of Multi-Tasking Staff (MTS) personnel, the claim for transfer by the applicants based on existence of "Gardener vacancies" is misconceived and untenable.

(vi) The learned counsel for the respondents sums up by stating that even if vacancies do exist at certain locations, the applicants cannot be transferred solely on that basis, as they are no longer part of a distinct trade but are part of the Multi-Tasking Staff (MTS) cadre. Further, in view of the existing deficiency of Multi-Tasking Staff (MTS) personnel at ASC Centre (North), their transfer is not administratively feasible.

5. Conclusion:

(1) I have given thoughtful consideration to the averments and arguments of the learned Counsels for the applicant and the respondents. I have also carefully gone through all the documents which were brought on record by the respective Counsels.

(2) The crux of the matter is that the applicants have given repeated representations for transfer to the posts of Gardeners/Malis against the vacancies which are supposedly existing as per RTI information furnished to the applicants dated 02.02.2026 and 03.02.2026 and 04.02.2026. It would be useful to have a look at the Judgements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India KOMAL RANI

KOMA L RANI

and other Courts regarding the issue of Transfers and Postings. The relevant extracts are as below:

(i) In the order of Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, Delhi in OA No. 1771/2023 dated 23.10.2024 between Dr. Shyam Mohan Singh Yadav and Union of India and Ors., it has been held as: “13. This is a trite law that scope of judicial interference in transfer matters in exercise of power of judicial review is limited: -

(i) Transfer is issue of violation of statutory rules.

(ii) Malafide exercise of power.

(iii) Transfer order is without jurisdiction."

(ii) Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India Versus S.L. Abbas, reported in (1993) 4 SCC 357, has held as:- "6. An order of transfer is 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…….

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…..”

KOMAL RANI

KOMA L RANI

(iii) In case of Shilpi Bose Versus State of Bihar, (1991) Supp. 2 SCC 659, The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as:- "4. In our opinion, the Courts should not interfere with a transfer Order which are made in public interest and for administrative reasons unless the transfer Orders are made in violation of any mandatory statutory Rule or on the ground of malafide. A Government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one place or the other, he is liable to be transferred from one place to the other. Transfer Orders issued by the competent authority do not violate any of his legal rights. Even if a transfer Order is passed in violation of executive instructions or Orders, the Courts ordinarily should not interfere with the Order instead affected party should approach the higher authorities in the Department. If the Courts continue to interfere with day-to-day transfer Orders issued by the Government and its subordinate authorities, there will be complete chaos in the Administration which would not be conducive to public interest. The High Court over looked these aspects in interfering with the transfer Orders.

(iv) In case of Union of India Versus Janardhan Debanath, (2004) 4 SCC, it has been held as:- "The question whether the respondents could be transferred to a different division is a matter for the employer to consider depending upon the administrative necessities and the extent of solution for the problems faced by the administration. It is not for the Supreme Court to direct one way or the other. It is not for this Court to direct one way or the other. The judgment of the High Court is clearly indefensible and is set aside. The writ petitions filed before the High Court deserve to be dismissed which we direct. The appeals are allowed with no order as to costs."

KOMAL RANI

KOMA L RANI

(v) In State of M.P. vs. S.S. Kourav, (1995) 3 SCC 270, it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that: “……… 4………the courts or Tribunals are not appellate forums to decide on transfers of officers on administrative grounds. The wheels of administration should be allowed to run smoothly and the courts or tribunals are not expected to interdict the working of the administrative system by transferring the officers to proper places. It is for the administration to take appropriate decision and such decisions shall stand unless they are vitiated either by malafides or by extraneous consideration without any factual background foundation. In this case we have seen that on the administrative grounds the transfer orders came to be issued. Therefore, we cannot go into the expediency of posting an officer at a particular place.”

(3) From the above catena of judgements, it is very clear that Courts can interfere in matters of Transfers and Postings only in very limited circumstances, as repeatedly highlighted above. Judicial Interference in matters of transfer is warranted only when:

(i) Transfer is in violation of Statutory Rules/laid down procedures.

(ii) There is malafide exercise of power by the concerned authorities

(iii) Transfer order is without jurisdiction or carried out by an Authority which is not competent to do so.

(4) It is seen that at no stage, the learned counsel for the applicants has attributed any of the three conditions mentioned above to the respondents. It is also seen that the Appointment letters of the applicants in Para 6 of Annexure A-2 and A-3 very clearly states as follows: KOMAL RANI

KOMA L RANI

“4033/Rect/Appt/Gardener/Civ/Q8 22 March 2014 To Mr. Udai Pratap Singh S/o Shri Santosh Kumar Village: Khanpur, Post: Khanpur (Umarda), Distt: Kannauj State: Uttar Pradesh PIN Code-209738

OFFER OF APPOINTMENT ON DIRECT RECRUITMENT ……………….

6. You will be liable to be posted and transferred anywhere in India.”

“4033/Rect/Appt/Gardener/Civ/Q8 22 May 2013 To Mr. Anurodh Kumar S/o Shri Jagannath Vill: Daudpur PO: Makanpur Teh: Bilhaur Distt: Kanpur(Nagar) State: Uttar Pradesh PIN Code: 209202

OFFER OF APPOINTMENT ON DIRECT RECRUITMENT ……………….

6. You will be liable to be posted and transferred anywhere in India.”

(5) Furthermore, it is very clear from letter dated 07.10.2013 that the erstwhile Group D posts of Gestener/Roneo Operator, Daftry, Head Messenger/Jamadar Messenger/Jamadar Peon, Peon/Messenger, Head Searcher/Head Female Searcher, Searcher/Female Searcher, Head Gardener/ KOMAL RANI

KOMA L RANI

Head Mali, Gardener/Mali, Safaiwala, Attendant, Head Chowkidar/Head Watchman/Jamadar Watchman, Chowkidar/ Range Chowkidar/ Watchman and Book Binder have been merged and granted the common designation of Multi Tasking Staff.

(6) The same has also been reiterated in letter dated 01.06.2023, the relevant extracts of which are as follows: “Tele: 26163813 15902/MP-4 (Clv) (b) 01 Jun 2023 INTEGRATED HQ OF MOD (ARMY) AG's BRANCH/MP-4 (CIV) (B) MERGER OF VARIOUS ERSTWHILE GROUP 'D' COMMON CATEGORY POSTS AS MULTI TASKING STAFF - REG

1. Reference the following:-

(a) AG/MP-4(Civ) Note No. 15203/14/MP 4(Civ)(a) dated 15 Mar 2012.

(b) AG/MP-4(Civ) Note No. 15203/14/MP 4(Civ)(a) dated 19 Nov 2014.

(c) AG/MP-4(Civ) Nete No. 15902/MP 4(Civ)(B) dated 09 Jul 2018.

2. As per the recommendations of the 6th CPC, erstwhile Gp 'D' common category posts viz. Peon, Daftry, Jamadar, JGO, Farash, Chowkidar, Safaiwala, Mali etc have been upgraded to Gp 'C' assigning the common designation of 'Multi-Tasking Staff (MTS) vide DoP&T OM dated 30 Apr 2010.

3. On the guidelines issued vide the said DoP&T OM, the following erstwhile Gp 'D' posts available in lower formations of Defence units/ests have since been re-designated as MTS and revised RR issued by AG/MP-4 vide SRO 70 dated 08 Nov 2011 on the lines of Model RRs annexed to that OM. Further, the post of "Lascar' has recently been included in the common category of MTS vide SRO 75/2018.:-

(a) Gestetner/Roneo Operator

(b) Daftry

(c) Head Messenger/Jamadar Messenger/Jamadar Peon KOMAL RANI

KOMA L RANI

(d) Peon/Messenger

(e) Head Searcher/Head Female Searcher

(f) Searcher/Female Searcher

(g) Head Gardener/Head Mali

(h) Gardener/Mali

(i) Safaiwala/Safalwali

(j) Attendant

(k) Head Chowkidar/Head Watchman/Jamadar Watchman

(l) Chowkidar/Range Chowkidar/Watchman

(m) Book Binder”

(7) It is pertinent to note here that nowhere in the OA, the merger of group ‘D’ post under the broad umbrella of MTS has been challenged. Hence, the applicants are bound by the OMs and Orders cited above and the laid down procedures to work in any capacity, anywhere in the country under the common category of MTS. The decision of the respondents to reject the representations of the applicants essentially flows out from the OMs of DoPT dated 30.04.2010, RR dated 08.11.2011, letter No. 60657/37/SD-6 dated 11.01.2024 etc under which all trades were merged under the broad category of MTS, which have not been challenged here. Even assuming that there are vacancies of erstwhile post of Gardeners/Malis available in certain places like Lucknow, Ayodhya, Rajput Regiment as conveyed to the applicants in the RTI replies dated 04.02.2026, 02.02.2026 and 03.02.2026, it does not entitle the applicants to being posted against the so called vacancies. No OM/Rule/Directive has been cited by the learned counsel for the applicants which show that the applicants have to be KOMAL RANI

KOMA L RANI

necessarily posted against the erstwhile posts of Malis/Gardeners, which in any case, stand abolished.

(8) It is also seen that in the Confidential reply furnished by Col OC HQ Coy, ASC Center (North) dated 13.10.2026, it has been reiterated that there are no vacancies of gardeners. The relevant portion of this reply (which in the considered view of this Bench is not confidential in nature and hence, can be brought on record) is reproduced as follows: “………..It is submitted that MTS (Gardner) trade has been abolished alongwith some other trades from ASC units of Indian Army vide Directorate General of Staff Duties (SD-6), Integrated Headquarters of Ministry of Defence (Army) letter No 60657/37/SD-6 dated 11 Jan 2024. Presently, no vacancies of Gardener exists not only in the three locations mentioned above in para 2 but also in all other units of ASC…..”

(9) In the light of the above facts and circumstances and the Judgements of Hon’ble Supreme Court and Coordinate Bench of CAT cited above, this Court comes to the conclusion that there are no grounds to warrant interference in the posting/transfer of the applicants. The respondents are well within their rights to either post the applicants, on the basis of exigencies of administration and in public interest, anywhere in India, or retain them against the post of MTS, as deemed fit by them. We do not find any malafide in the decision of the respondents to reject the repeated representations of the applicants for their postings as Malis, nor the decision of the respondents is in violation of any OM / SOP/ Rule etc. Hence, the OA has no legs to stand upon. Accordingly, it is hereby ordered as follows: KOMAL RANI

KOMA L RANI

(i) The OA is dismissed.

(ii) All MAs, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.

(iii) No Costs.

Sd/- (SANTOSH MEHRA)

MEMBER (A)

kr KOMAL RANI

KOMA L RANI