ATUL SIRJERAO THAKRE vs CENTRAL GROUND WATER BOARD on 29 October 2026

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI Order Sheet Item no.: 2 O.A./840/2026 (NAGPUR) [ TRANSFER ] Court No.: 1 No of Adjournment: Order Dated: 29/10/2026 ATUL SIRJERAO THAKRE Vs CENTRAL GROUND WATER BOARD

For Applicant(s) Advocate : Adv. Neeraj B Karade For Respondent(s) Advocate : Adv. Bhaskar D Pandit Order of The Tribunal Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The applicant who is working as Technical Operator (Drilling) in Nagpur Office. He was transferred vide order dated 02.07.2026 wherein he has been transferred from Nagpur to Bangalore by way of single order. The applicant had filed OA No. 520/2026 challenging the said order wherein the applicant had been granted interim relief. The said OA was disposed of vide order dated 11th September, 2026 with directions to the respondents to consider the representation of the applicant and pass speaking order. The interim relief was continued till service of the speaking order on applicant. The respondents disposed of the representation by way of speaking order dated 05.10.2026 rejecting the representation of the applicant. Aggrieved the applicant has filed this instant original application. Interim relief has been sought.

3. It has been submitted by the applicant that the situation has not changed from the time when IR was granted in the first OA. It was submitted that the applicant suffers from sickle cell anemia a fact which the respondents have acknowledged while passing order dated 31st May, 2016 wherein he was retained at Nagpur on this medical ground only and the said order is in operation. It is also submitted that due to his having made complaints to higher authorities he has been targeted and transferred by way of single order. It was also pointed out that in the pursis given as justification for transfer, issue of shortage was discussed in general terms except the applicant who was discussed by name. He has alleged malafide etc.

4. Respondents counsel, Shri Pandit, opposes grant of interim stay and states that order dated 31.05.2016 is not a policy decision but a concession to the applicant. It was also stated that the applicant has been relieved on 14.10.2026. It was also submitted that speaking order has already been passed taking care of all the objections of the applicant

5. Applicant counsel submits that speaking order was passed on 05.10.2026 and served on the applicant on 13.10.2026. He has been relieved on 14.10.2026 which also shows the malafide on the part of the respondents.

6. Ld. Counsel for the respondents submitted that the applicant has been avoiding service of notice and communication in this regard which is evident from the documents submitted by the respondents today.

7. I have gone through facts of the case and there is no dispute regarding the applicant suffering from sickle cell anemia. There was an order passed way back in 2016 allowing him to be retained at Nagpur on this medical ground.

8. I have taken note of the sumission regarding avoidance of communication. It may be stated that this does not change the situation. If the person is avoiding service of notice and there is a case against him for whatever reasons of any misconduct he can be proceeded against. However it cannot be ground for relieving him suddenly within a day of speaking order being served on him. Joining time is available to the applicant and they need not be in any hurry in issuing relieving order which action itself raises, prima facie, presumption of bias.

9. For the above reasons the applicant has been able to show prima facie case for grant of interim relief. Therefore, the transfer order dated 02.07.2026 transferring the applicant from Nagpur to Bangalore and the relieving order dated 14.10.2026 is stayed till next date of hearing.

10. It has also been brought to my notice by the respondents counsel that the applicant had in the past been avoiding office in view of the reliving order despite it having been stayed. The applicant is directed to attend office as the relieving order has been stayed at his own request. Needless to say the respondents would be within their rights to initiate any action as they deem fit if the applicant does not attend the office.

11. Issue notice to the respondents returnable in November, 2026 Circuit Sitting at Nagpur.

12. Shri Pandit, learnd counsel waives notice for Respondent No. 1 to 4. Dasti. Sangam Narain Srivastava Member (A) C Kumar ( court master )