SUMIT SINGH YADAV vs NORTHERN RAILWAY on 12 October 2026

1. Union of India through General Manager, Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi.

2. The Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway, Hazratganj, Lucknow.

3. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Northern Railway, Hazratganj, Lucknow.

4. The Senior Divisional Operating Manager, Northern Railway, Hazratganj, Lucknow.

5. The Assistant Personnel Officer, Northern Railway, Hazratganj, Lucknow.

6. The Assistant Operating Manager (G), Northern Railway, Hazratganj, Lucknow. …..Respondents By Advocate: Smt. Prayagmati Gupta

ORDER (ORAL) Per Hon’ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative In this case relating to transfer, the applicant has sought following reliefs:-

1. To quash the impugned transfer order of Sumit Singh Yadav dated 23.03.2026 (contained in Annexure No. A-1 to this OA), and also to quash the decision dated 01.09.2026 (contained in Annexure No. A-2 to this O.A.) with all consequential benefits.

2. To allow the applicant to work on the present place of posting i.e. Lucknow Station.

3. To issue any other order or direction, which this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

4. To allow the instant O.A. with costs.

2. The facts of the case are that the applicant joined Indian Railways on 05.10.2010 and he was initially posted at Akbarganj. Subsequently, at his own request, the applicant was posted as Station Master at Lucknow vide order dated 06.10.2025. However, a few months later, he was transferred to Chaubisi vide order dated 23.03.2026 against which he represented and also approached this Tribunal in OA No. 413 of 2026 whereupon this Tribunal, vide order dated 07.08.2026, directed the respondents to decide the applicant’s pending representation and allow him to continue at his place of posting at Lucknow till the disposal of his representation. The respondents rejected the applicant’s representation vide order dated 01.09.2026. Aggrieved, the applicant has preferred this OA.

3. The applicant’s contention is that he has been transferred within six months of his posting at Lucknow while the respondents, vide order dated 03.11.2025, have stipulated that persons who have completed 4 years or more on sensitive post on 31.03.2026 may be transferred. His second contention is that he has been transferred in contravention of the transfer policy dated 08.07.2025 which stipulates that the transfer orders may be issued in the month of January/February of the year. Thirdly, the applicant avers that in OA No. 413 of 2026, the respondents had taken the position that his posting was done due to derailment in Lucknow Yard, but when the applicant provided the joint report dated 06.01.2026 in which he was not named as the official responsible, the respondents have changed their version that he has been transferred on administrative ground. Fourthly, the applicant contends that there are 23 vacancies at

Lucknow Station and filling vacancies at Lucknow is more important than Chaubisi. He avers that the transfer is arbitrary.

4. The respondents aver that unless the transfer order is in violation of statutory provisions or is mala fide, the Courts and Tribunals should not interfere with such order [Shilpi Bose & Ors vs State of Bihar & Ors 1991 (2) SCC (SUPP) 659; Union of India & Ors vs S L Abbas 1993 (4) SCC 357; National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd vs Shri Bhagwan & Anr 2001 (8) SCC 574]. They contend that the impugned transfer order dated 23.03.2026 has been issued on account of administrative requirement in terms of the Master Circular No. 24 due to the vacant post of Station Superintendent at Chaubisi, but the applicant refused to receive the sparing letter to join at Chaubisi.

5. Heard both the parties. 6.1 The law relating to judicial review of transfer orders is well settled through a catena of cases adjudicated by Hon’ble Supreme Court. It has been held that transfer is an incident (Gujarat Electricity Board vs Atmaram Sungomal Poshani, AIR 1989 SC 1433) and a condition of service (State Bank of India vs Anjan Sanyal AIR 2001 SC 1748) and it should not be interfered with unless it violates statutory provision (Act or rule) or is issued by an authority not competent to do so (State of U. P. vs Gobardhan Lal AIR 2004 SC 2165) or is mala fide, including transfer in lieu of punishment (Somesh Tiwari vs Union of India & Ors AIR 2009 SC 1399). 6.2 It is noted that the applicant is holding the post of Station Master in the Indian Railways which is directly concerned with the day to day operations and administration of the Railways. While the various guidelines issued by the respondents on transfer norms serve as a yardstick for effecting transfers, the administrative and operational requirements can take precedence over such guidelines and there is no indefeasible right to continue at a particular place of posting. 6.3 In the present case, the applicant was transferred from Lucknow following an incident of derailment. Though the applicant was not named as the official responsible for such derailment in the joint report dated 06.01.2026, this does not bar the respondents from transferring the applicant to another place on ground of administrative requirement. The respondents have explained that the applicant has been transferred to Chaubisi due to the existing vacancy at that Station. Whether it is more important to fill up the vacancy at Lucknow Station or at Chaubisi Station is a matter which lies in the respondents’ domain. So long as there is a plausible explanation for the applicant’s transfer, it cannot be said that such transfer is hit by the vice of arbitrariness. 6.4 To conclude, no case has been made out for interference of this Tribunal in the impugned orders. 7.1 In view of the foregoing, this OA is dismissed for being devoid of merit. 7.2 Associated MAs also stand disposed of. 7.3 Parties shall bear their own costs.

(Pankaj Kumar) Member (A)

Warij Warij Yadav Digitally signed by Warij Yadav