Sushil Kumar Pati vs CAG on 15 October 2026

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL JABALPUR Order Sheet Item no.: 11 O.A./981/2026 (JABALPUR) [ TRANSFER ] With M.A./1375/2026 FOR TAKING DOCUMENT ON RECORD Court No.: 2 No of Adjournment: Order Dated: 15/10/2026 SUSHIL KUMAR PATI Vs CAG

For Applicant(s) Advocate : Shri Akash Choudhury For Respondent(s) Advocate : Ms. Surbhi Nigam appearing on advance notice Order of The Tribunal Heard. Issue notice to the respondents as per rules. Also heard on the prayer of interim relief. The applicant is aggrieved by transfer order dated 31.07.2026 (Annexure A-3), whereby he has been transferred from Jabalpur to Bhopal Division. He is further aggrieved by rejection of his representation vide order dated 12.10.2026 (Annexure A-1) and consequential relieving order of even date.

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the paragraph 5(iii) of the Centralised Cadre Transfer Policy dated 20.01.2026 (Annexure A-10) provides that officers above 56 years of age shall be exempted from transfer outside their base station/choice station. The applicant is above 56 years of age and, as such, he needs to be protected under this policy. Further, the applicant has been transferred during the mid academic session of his daughter, who is studying in Class XI. He placed reliance on the decisions of Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Ripudaman Singh Yadav vs. State of M.P. and Others 2019 SCC OnLine MP 1658; Writ Petition No.21674 of 2022 decided on 23.09.2022 and Writ Petition No.24445 of 2026 decided on 03.07.2026, wherein the Hon’ble High Court has observed that, “the public servant whose children are pursuing their career in the higher secondary stage of education ought not to be disturbed barring emergent situation where transfer cannot be avoided or deferred.” On the other hand, counsel for the respondents submits that the applicant has already been relieved and the incumbent transferred in his place has also joined. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties on the prayer for grant of interim relief. The applicant in this case is continuing at Jabalpur since 2006. The impugned order dated 12.10.2026 (Annexure A-1) passed on applicant’s representation, clearly states that he has been transferred on administrative need on the recommendations of a duly constituted Transfer and Posting Board. Regarding the age exemption under the transfer policy, the respondents have stated that the applicant is borne on the Railway Cadre without having All-India transfer liability. The provisions under the policy are applicable to the AAOs & SAOs, who are borne on the Commercial Cadre and Defence Audit cadre with all-India transfer liability. So far as the mid-session transfer is concerned, this aspect has already been considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of M.P. vs. S.S. Kaurav (1995) 3 SCC 270 wherein it has been held that, “it is not permissible for the Court to go into the relative hardship of the employees. It is for the administration to consider the facts of given case and mitigate the real hardship in the interest of good and efficient administration.” We are of the view that the applicant has not been able to make out a prima facie case in his favour for grant of interim relief. Accordingly, the prayer for interim relief is rejected. Respondents are directed to file their reply within four weeks. List this matter for consideration on 18.12.2026. Issue certified copy.

Smt Mallika Arya Member (A) RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA Member (J) Anupam Mishra ( steno 'c' )