MS HANSA D MESHRAM vs INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT on 28 October 2026

ORAL ORDER

Per: Justice M.G. Sewlikar, Member (J)

This is an application for setting aside the Transfer Order dated 12th August, 2026.

2. Facts in nutshell are that the applicant has been working as Assistant Director (Official Lanugage) at the National Academy of Direct Taxes (NADT), Nagpur. The applicant was promoted as Assistant Director (Official Language) about one and a half years back. The applicant has been transferred to the Office of Principal Chief Income Tax Commissioner’s Nagpur. The applicant has challenged her transfer on the ground that the respondents have followed the pick and choose policy. Her mother is 90 years old and has several ailments. The transfer is against the own policy of the respondents. Therefore, the applicant has sought setting aside the impugned transfer order (Annexure-A-1).

3. Respondents contend in their reply that the transfer is not transfer at all because the applicant is posted at a place which is 3 kms away from her present office. Therefore, it is not a transfer at all.

Munarshi

4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the respondents.

5. Shri Sahare, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the employee at serial no. 16, Mamata Parijat Pandey is senior to her and she has been at Nagpur for more than 23 years. Therefore, the respondents ought to have transferred Smt. Pandey. However, applicant has been transferred vide impugned order. He submits that the Transfer Committee has made the transfers. He submits that the post to which the applicant has been transferred does not exist at the transferred place. He submits that Shri Amber Narayanprasad Mahule has been posted as Deputy Director (Offical Language) against the post of Assistant Director i.e. the post which the applicant was holding. He submits that this clearly shows that the respondents have adopted the policy of pick and choose while effecting transfers. He submits that applicant’s mother is 90 years of age. He states that the CGHS hospital is near the present residence of the applicant. She has age related ailments. Applicant is a single lady. There is no one to look after her. He submits that in these circumstances, the respondents ought

Munarshi not to have transferred the applicant. This itself shows that the respondents entertain bias against the applicant. He further submits that the transfer is on account of promotion and, therefore, though it is at the same place, in law, it is a transfer.

6. Learned counsel Shri Sahare invites my attention to the clause C of the policy. He states that on promotion, the promoted employee will be transferred and he will not be transferred if the tenure of the employee is less than two years. He submits that this policy has been violated and, therefore, the order needs to be set aside.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the applicant has been at Nagpur for the past 22 years. She has been transferred at a place which is 3 kms away from the present office. He further submits that the office of Principal Chief Income Tax Commissioner, Nagpur is near the residence of the applicant. Therefore, it is convenient to her. He further submits that the respondents had called for options for transfer of the employees, in which the applicant had given the office of Principal Chief Income Tax Commissioner’s Nagpur as second option. He submits

Munarshi that the transfer has been as per her option and, therefore, she cannot have any grievance against it.

8. I have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the respondents.

9. The policy of transfer has been placed on record at Annexure- A-11 which is in hindi. Sub clauses 1 and 2 of clause C of the policy are relevant for our purpose which are reproduced hereunder:- “क) स्थान ांतरण एवं तैनाती दिशा-निर्देश -

1. केन्द्रीय प्रत्यक्ष कर बोर्ड के कार्यालय ों में राजभाषा के ग्रुप 'ए' उप निदेशक (रा.भा.) एवं सहायक निदेशक (रा.भा.) के पद पर पदोन्नति होने पर सामान्यतः प्रभार से बाहर स्थान ांतरण किया जाएगा। यदि वर्तमान तैनाती स्थान पर उसकी कार्यावधि उस स्टेशन पर 02 वर्ष से कम है और उस स्टेशन पर वह पद उपलब्ध है तथा वह अधिकारी स्थान ांतरण नह ीं चाहता तो उसका स्थान ांतरण नह ीं किया जाएगा।

2. यदि किसी अधिकारी की ग्रुप- 'ए' के पद पर पदोन्नति होती है किन्तु उसकी सेवानिवृत्ति में 03 साल या इससे कम का समय है और वह उस क्षेत्र से बाहर स्थानातरण नह ीं चाहता तो उसका स्थान ांतरण नह ीं किया जाएगा या उसके द्वारा दिए गए विकल्प पर तैनात किया जाएगा, बशर्ते वह ां पद रिक्त हो।“

10. From this policy, it is seen that if any employee is promoted to the post of Deputy Director (Official Language) or Assistant Director (Official Language), he will be transferred. If his present tenure at the current location is less than two years and he does not

Munarshi want transfer, in that case, he will not be transferred. Sub clause 2 states that even after promotion in Group ‘A’, if he is going to be retired in less than three years and he does not want to be transferred out of the zone, he will not be transferred.

11. From the allegations made in the application, it can be seen that the applicant is not transferred on promotion. The applicant was promoted one and a half years back and she was posted at the same place. She was promoted as Assistant Director and she was not transferred but she was retained at that place only. After one and a half years, this transfer has been made. Therefore, it is not a transfer on promotion. In these circumstances, the question is whether it amounts to transfer.

12. It is settled principle of law that when a person is posted from one office to another office at the same station, it cannot be called as a transfer as held in the case of Ashok vs. State of Maharashtra in W.P. No. 5320/2018 decided on 22nd December, 2018 (Bombay High Court) and Shri Rajendra Kalal vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors., W.P. No. 8898/2010 decided on 30th November, 2010. If applicant is transferred at the same place on the

Munarshi same post, it cannot be called as transfer. In these circumstances, when it does not amount to transfer, the question of the transfer having been made out of bias or for favouring someone or for pick and choose policy, does not arise. In these circumstances, I find that it is not transfer. Hence, the application cannot be entertained. Hence, OA stands dismissed with no order as to costs.

(Justice M.G. Sewlikar)

Member (J)

nk.

Munarshi