Bikartan Parida vs EAST COAST RAILWAY on 6 November 2026

O R D E R

PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A):

The applicant has filed this OA seeking direction to the respondents to allow him to continue in his place of posting till completion of his daughter’s 10th Board examination 2025-26 by quashing the order of transfer dtd. 13.05.2025 from BHC to CTC.

2. The matter was listed on 03.07.2025, on which date, while giving opportunity to the respondents to file counter as well as show cause to the IR, stayed the order of transfer dated 13.05.2023 so far as applicant was concerned, which order is continuing till date.

3. Respondents filed their counter, the sum and substance of which is that the transfer of the applicant being made on public and administrative interest, therefore, needs no interference by this Bench. RAVI KUMAR

4. Applicant filed memo dated 10.07.2026 stating therein that the prayer made in para 8(ii) may be ignored for final disposal of this OA.

5. Heard.

6. Ld. Counsel for the applicant by reiterating the stand taken in the OA, rejoinder and by filing the letter dated 05.08.2026 relating to posting of husband and wife at the same place, has submitted that since the transfer of the applicant is in violation of the transfer guidelines issued by the respondents and the letter dated 05.08.2025, his order of transfer is liable to be quashed.

7. Ld. Counsel for the respondents has submitted that considering the prayer made in para 8(ii), this Bench granted the stay. After enjoying the stay, the applicant is estopped under law to veer round by filing memo praying to delete the prayer 8(ii). Since, the examination of his daughter for 2025-26 is over, the applicant as per his own prayer made in the OA ought not to have objected to join at his new place of posting in obedience to the order of transfer. Therefore, the memo is liable to be RAVI KUMAR

rejected. Insofar as merit of the matter, Ld. Counsel for the respondents has submitted that the authorities, manning the department, are well competent to decide when and at what point of time who should be posted where for the smooth functioning of the department. Since the present transfer is made in public/administrative interest, no judicial interference is called for. It is also submitted that the circular dated 05.08.2025 relied on by the applicant cannot confer any legal right on him to claim his continuance at his present place of posting for eternity, especially when, the circular states that the principle made therein is to be applied as far as practicable. Further, according to the respondents, the violation of the guidelines of the transfer as alleged by him is hardly of any merit because the same can hardly be of any merit since the transfer of the applicant is made on public/administrative exigency. Therefore, the respondents prayed for dismissal of this OA.

8. We are reminded by the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Bank of India Vs Jagjit Singh Mehta, 1992 AIR 519, wherein Their Lordships held as under: RAVI KUMAR

“There can be no doubt that ordinarily and as far as practicable the husband and wife who are both employed should be posted at the same station even if their employers be different. The desirability of such a course is obvious. However, this does not mean that their place of posting should invariably be one of their choice, even though their preference may be taken into account while making the deci- sion in accordance with the administrative needs. In the case of All-India Services, the hardship resulting from the two being posted at different stations may be unavoidable at times particularly when they belong to different services and one of them cannot be transferred to the place of the other's posting. While choosing the career and a particular service, the couple have to bear in mind this factor and be prepared to face such a hardship if the administrative needs and transfer policy do not permit the posting of both at one place without sacrifice of the requirements of the administration and needs of other employees. In such a case the couple have to make their choice at the threshold between career prospects and family life. After giving preference to the career prospects by accepting such a promotion or any appointment in an All-India Service with the incident of transfer to any place in India, subordinating the need of the couple living together at one station, they cannot as of right claim to be relieved of the ordinary incidents of All-India Service and avoid transfer to a different place on the ground that the spouses thereby would be posted at different places. In addition, in the present case, the respondent voluntarily gave an undertaking that he was. prepared to be posted at any place in India and on that basis got promotion from the clerical cadre to the Officers' grade and thereafter he seeks to be relieved of that necessary incident of All-India Service on the ground that his wife has to remain at Chandigarh. No doubt the guidelines require the two spouses to be posted at one place as far as practicable, but that does not enable any spouse to claim such a posting as of right if the departmental authorities do not consider it RAVI KUMAR

feasible. The only thing required is that the departmental authorities should consider this aspect along with the exigencies of administration and enable the two spouses to live together at one station if it is possible without any detriment to the administrative needs and the claim of other employees. The High Court was in error in overlooking all the relevant aspects as well as the absence of any legal fight in the respondent to claim the relief which the High Court has granted as a matter of course. The High Court's order must, therefore, be set aside.”

9. Further, we are reminded by the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India & Ors Vs S.L. Abbas, 1993 AIR 2444, wherein Their Lordships have held as under: “The jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal is akin to the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the constitution of India in service matters. This is evident from a perusal of Article 323-A of the constitution. The constraints and norms which the High Court observes while exercising the said jurisdiction apply equally to the Tribunal created under Article 323-A. (We find it all the more surprising that the learned Single Member who passed the impugned order is a former Judge of the High Court and is thus aware of the norms and constraints of the writ jurisdiction.) The Administrative Tribunal is not an Appellate Authority sitting in judgment over the orders of transfer. It cannot substitute its own judgment for that of the authority competent to transfer. In this case the Tribunal has clearly exceeded its jurisdiction in interfering with the order of transfer. The order of the Tribunal reads as if it were sitting in appeal over the order of transfer made by the Senior Administrative Officer (competent authority).” RAVI KUMAR

10. We have considered the submissions of the parties keeping in view the facts and law discussed above and perused the records. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, we do not find any substance on any of the grounds taken in his OA, rejoinder and in course of hearing so as to interdict/intervene in the administration of the authorities by issuing the order of transfer dated 13.05.2025, especially when, it is not the case of the applicant that his transfer is actuated with proven malice or mala fide exercise of power and, that, the 10th examination of his daughter for the session 2025-26 is over by now. Hence, this OA is liable to be dismissed.

11. In the result, the OA stands dismissed by leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Stay order stands vacated. Pending, MA, if any, also stands disposed of.

(Pramod Kumar Das)

(Sudhi Ranjan Mishra) Member (Admn.)

Member (Judl.)

RK/PS RAVI KUMAR