Central Administrative Tribunal
subodh kumar jha vs RAILWAY BOARD on 23 October 2026
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
LUCKNOW BENCH
Original Application No. 332/00660/2026
This, the 23rd day of October, 2026
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR OJHA, MEMBER (J), Subodh Kumar Jha, aged about 47 years, son of Late Shiv Chandra Jha, resident of 3089A Type-III, MCF, Lalganj, Raebareli, presently posted at Raebareli.
..Applicant
By Advocate: Shri Alok Kumar Tripathi.
VERSUS
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Union of India through Chairman, Railway Board, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. General Manager, Modern Coach Factory, Lalganj, Raebareli.
3. Principal Chief Personnel Officer / Competent Personnel Authority, Modern Coach Factory, Lalganj, Raebareli.
…..Respondents By Advocate: Ms. Prayagmati Gupta
O R D E R [ORAL] Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the records.
2. Through this Original Application, applicant has prayed for the following relief(s): "(i) To quash the impugned transfer order dated 01.10.2026 (contained as Annexure No. 1 to this OA), with all consequential benefits.
(ii) To allow the applicant to continue to work on the present place of posting i.e. Modern Coach Factory, Raebareli, with all consequential benefits.
(iii) to allow the applicant to withdraw his request for transfer made before issuance of new transfer policy.
(iv) to issue any other order or direction, which this Hon’ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
(v) to allow the instant O.A. with costs.”
3. At the outset, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant would be happy and satisfied if applicant is permitted to file fresh representation stating all the facts and competent authority may be directed to decide the same by way of a reasoned and speaking order within a stipulated period of time. Further argued that till disposal of the fresh representation, the impugned transfer order dated 01.10.2026 (Annexure No. 1 to this OA) may be kept in abeyance.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents orally opposed the aforesaid prayer, however, requested that at least two months’ time may be given for disposal of the fresh representation.
5. Keeping in view, the innocuous prayer made by the applicant, this O.A. is disposed of finally, without going into the merits of the case, with a direction to the applicant to prefer fresh representation stating all the facts within ten days from today and respondents/ competent authority shall consider and decide the said representation of the applicant within a period of two months from the date of receipt of such representation in accordance with law by passing a reasoned and speaking order under intimation to the applicant forthwith. Till then, impugned transfer order dated 01.10.2026 (Annexure No. 1 to this OA) be kept in abeyance. Copy of this order be supplied to the learned counsel for the parties forthwith. There is no order as to costs.
(Justice Anil Kumar Ojha)
Member (J)
JNS Jay Narayan Singh Digitally signed by Jay Narayan Singh Date: 2026.10.23 13:10:59 +05'30'