RUPESH KRISHNA UPASKAR vs EMPLOYEES PROVIDEND FUND ORGANISATION (EPFO) on 28 December 2023

**ORDER**

By way of the present Original Application, the applicant is challenging the order dated 18.10.2023 whereby the respondents have transferred the applicant on promotion and posted him to RO Raichur as EO. The main plank of the arguments of the applicant is The logo of the Central Administrative Tribunal, featuring a circular emblem with a sun-like design in the center and the text 'Central Administrative Tribunal' around the perimeter.2OA No.1128/2023

that 44 candidates were promoted to the post of EO/AO. It seems options were invited from all the officers i.e. EO/AOs for all Regional Offices except Regional Office at Goa. The applicant serving in the Regional Office of Goa could not avail of the opportunity to submit his option for posting on promotion. Hence, the present OA has been filed seeking a limited relief that he may be given the opportunity to give his option before his posting on promotion.

2. Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant has relied upon the email which was sent from the Head Office Bengaluru calling for options for posting in the cadre of EO/AO, to various Regional Offices. He submits that the email itself would show that it was not addressed to the Regional Office, Goa. Therefore, the options which were exercised by the 42 officers could not be exercised by the two officers from Goa who were promoted. Vide the impugned order it is the applicant alone who is aggrieved of the transfer as the other officer from Goa has no objection to the place he has been posted.

3. On notice, respondents have filed their counter affidavit and have taken the preliminary objection that the impugned order having been issued by the Competent Authority i.e. EPFO Bangalore Zone, Karnataka, challenged in the OA, would not fall within the territorial jurisdiction of this Tribunal. It has also been submitted that the applicant has made his representation against the impugned order, to the Competent Authority also at Bangalore. Therefore, challenge before this Tribunal is not maintainable.

4. On merits, respondents have stated that the Employees Provident Fund Organization is an All India Organization and the The logo of the Central Administrative Tribunal, featuring a circular emblem with a sun-like symbol in the center and the text 'Central Administrative Tribunal' around the perimeter.3OA No.1128/2023

applicant is liable to be transferred to any place within India. It is submitted that this is not a case of simple transfer as the applicant has been transfer-posted on promotion. It is also stated that the promotion orders were issued in March, 2023 with the condition that the officers who are been promoted would be liable to be transferred anywhere. The applicant had accepted the promotion and with it the underline condition also. Therefore, at this stage, when he is being posted at a place where his services are administratively required, he has no right to refuse. It has been stated that the applicant has been working in Regional Office, Goa since the day of initial appointment as LDC from 07.09.1995 onwards and is being out of Goa for the first time. Thus, the respondents have defended their action in posting the applicant on transfer.

5. I have heard both the learned counsels for the parties and perused the pleadings and documents available on record.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant vehemently argued and stressed on the fact that not giving opportunity to the officers of Regional Office, Goa amounts to discrimination. He submitted that applicant has been discriminated against as no option was sought from the Regional Office at Goa. He submits that the email seeking option was not marked to the Regional Office, Goa.

7. Respondents, on the other hand, have stated that the Goa would fall within the jurisdiction of Hubli Zone and the email calling for options was marked to the Additional Central PF Commissioner, Hubli Zone. Therefore, it cannot be stated that the options were not called for Goa Office.

4OA No.1128/2023

8. I have perused copy of the email sent by the Head Office at Bangalore, at page No.15 of the OA. I find that the email was sent to the Additional Central PF Commissioner Hubli Zone ([acc.hubligoa@epfindia.gov.in](mailto:acc.hubligoa@epfindia.gov.in)). Therefore, I find that the respondents have made the correct statement that the email was sent to the Hubli Goa Zone.

9. It is the settled law that unless the transfer is contrary to the provisions and prescribed norms, the Tribunal should not intervene in such transfer matters. It is the sole prerogative of the respondents as to who should be transferred and posted where on the basis of exigencies of work and administrative reasons as held in following decisions -

(1) As held by the Apex Court in case of *State of Madhya Pradesh and another Vs. S.S.Kourav and others*, (AIR 1995 SC 1056), 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 *mala-fides* or by the extraneous consideration without any factual background foundation.

(2) In *Union of India and others Vs. Janardhan Debanath, 2004 (4) SCC 245*, it was observed that no government servant or employee of a Public Undertaking has any legal right to be posted forever at any one particular place of his choice since transfer of any particular employee appointed to the class or category of transferable posts from one place to another is not only an incident, but a condition of service necessary in public interest and efficiency in the public administration.

5OA No.1128/2023

10. In view of the above discussion and guided by law as laid down by courts and in view of the finding that the email calling for option was sent to the Hubli Goa and the fact that the applicant has been posted in Goa since 1995, no interference is warranted. OA is dismissed. No costs.

(Harvinder Kaur Oberoi) Member (J)

kmg\*

TD 02/01/24

This image is a scan of a blank page. The background is a light beige or off-white color. There are a few small, dark specks scattered across the surface, which appear to be scanning artifacts or dust. A very faint, thin horizontal line is visible near the bottom of the page, possibly a scanning artifact or a separator line. The overall texture is slightly grainy, typical of a scanned document.