Arun Kumar singh vs NORTH CENTRAL RAILWAY on 5 November 2026

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD Order Sheet Item no.: 6 O.A./1276/2026 (ALLAHABAD) [ TRANSFER ] Court No.: 1 No of Adjournment: Order Dated: 05/11/2026 ARUN KUMAR SINGH Vs NORTH CENTRAL RAILWAY

For Applicant(s) Advocate :

For Respondent(s) Advocate : Order of The Tribunal Matter is taken up in the revised call. Shri Vikas Mani Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Prashant Mathur along with Sri Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents, are present. Admit. Counter affidavit, if any, may be filed within four weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter. By way of interim relief, the applicant has prayed that the operation of the impugned transfer order dated 27.10.2026 may kindly be stayed. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant, an IRSE officer (NF-SAG), was transferred from Northern Railway to Agra and assumed charge as CPM/GSU/AGC, Agra, on 23.02.2026. However, within about eight months of joining at Agra, the respondents issued the impugned transfer order dated 27.10.2026, transferring him to Prayagraj as CPM/C/HQ, with additional charge at Jhansi, without assigning any valid administrative reason. It is contended that the premature transfer is contrary to the Railway Board's Comprehensive Transfer Policy dated 31.08.2015, which prescribes a normal minimum tenure of two years. Learned counsel further submitted that the impugned order has been passed with mala fide intention to accommodate an officer of the respondents' choice. He also pointed out that the respondents had rejected the applicant's request for deputation in March 2026 on the ground that his presence at Agra was necessary for ongoing projects. Despite this, he was transferred within the same year, even though he had shifted his family to Agra in September 2026. It is further submitted that the applicant's children were admitted to Delhi Public School, Agra, in October 2026, and their education would be adversely affected by the mid- session transfer. Thus, learned counsel contended that the impugned transfer order is arbitrary, contrary to the Railway Board's transfer policy and guidelines concerning children's education, and is liable to be set aside. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer for interim relief and submitted that transfer is an incidence of service and an employee has no vested right to remain posted at a particular place. It is contended that the applicant was transferred from Agra to Prayagraj in the interest of administration, as he was not satisfactorily performing the tasks entrusted to him at Agra. In his place, Shri Neeraj Bhandari has joined as CPM/GSU/Agra, whereas the applicant has been posted as CPM/C/HQ, vice Shri M.P. Singh. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the impugned transfer order was issued on administrative grounds and with the approval of the competent authority. It is also argued that Paragraph 1(vii) of Railway Board Circular dated 31.08.2015 (RBE No. 87/2015) permits relaxation of the normal minimum tenure of two years in administrative exigencies. However, in administrative exigencies, relaxation may be granted by cadre controlling officer. The respondents have denied the allegations of mala fide and submitted that the transfer has not been made to accommodate any particular officer. Learned counsel for the respondents further argued that the applicant's personal difficulties, including the education of his children, cannot override administrative requirements. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sri Pubi Lombi vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh, LAWS(SC) 2024-3-37, and S.C. Saxena vs. Union of India and Others, (2006) 9 SCC 583, to contend that the Courts and Tribunals should not ordinarily interfere with transfer orders unless they are vitiated by mala fide or violation of statutory provisions. Accordingly, it is submitted that the applicant has failed to make out any case for grant of interim relief as one Neeraj Bhandari has joined on the said post after returning from deputation. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record. It is settled law that transfer is an incidence of service and an employee has no vested right to remain posted at a particular place. Courts and Tribunals should not ordinarily interfere with transfer orders unless they are vitiated by mala fide, passed by an incompetent authority or in violation of statutory provisions. In the present case, although the applicant was transferred before completion of the normal minimum tenure of two years prescribed under the Railway Board's Comprehensive Transfer Policy dated 31.08.2015, Paragraph 1(vii) permits relaxation in administrative exigencies. The respondents have explained that the applicant was transferred from Agra to Prayagraj due to administrative requirements and Shri Neeraj Bhandari has joined in his place after returning from deputation. The impugned order has also been approved by the competent authority. At this stage, no sufficient material has been placed before me to establish that the transfer was made for any extraneous consideration or in violation of the prescribed procedure. The allegation that the applicant was transferred to accommodate an officer of the respondents' choice is not supported by any convincing material. Further, the applicant's family shifting to Agra and admission of his children to a school there, do not confer any right upon him to continue at that place. The Railway Board's guidelines dated 12.12.2018 concerning children's education also do not appear to be attracted in the absence of material showing that the children fall within the specific protected category. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sri Pubi Lombi (supra) reiterated that judicial interference in transfer matters is warranted only where the transfer order is vitiated by mala fide, passed in violation of any statutory provision or professed norm, or where the person against whom allegations of mala fide are made has not been impleaded as a party. Mere allegation that the transfer is prejudicial to an employee holding a transferable post is not sufficient to warrant interference. Further, in S.C. Saxena (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that an employee should first join at the transferred place and thereafter ventilate his personal grievances by making an appropriate representation. In view of the foregoing discussion, I find that the applicant has failed to establish a prima facie case for grant of interim relief. The balance of convenience also does not lie in his favour, and no irreparable injury warranting interference at this stage has been established. Accordingly, the prayer for interim relief is rejected. List on 23.12.2026 before the Registrar for completion of pleadings. Justice Om Prakash VII Member (J) Manish Srivastava ( ps )