Ravindra singh vs DEPARTMENT OF POSTS on 4 November 2026

O R D E R

Heard Shri Manoj Kumar Upadhyay along with Shri Sachin Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan, learned counsel for the respondents, who has accepted notices on behalf of all the respondents.

SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

2. The applicant is presently working as LSG (NB) Sub Postmaster, Vasundhra Sub Post Office, Ghaziabad Postal Division, Uttar Pradesh Circle, and is presently attached to the office of Director Postal Services, Ghaziabad, as PS to Director Postal Services. The applicant was initially allotted Ghaziabad Division pursuant to his promotion to the LSG (NB) cadre vide order dated 27.08.2025. However, vide impugned order dated 14.10.2026, the respondents have re-allotted the applicant to Agra Region, thereby disturbing his existing place of posting. The applicant has, therefore, approached this Tribunal challenging the aforesaid transfer/re-allotment order.

3. It is further submitted that the applicant has a four-year-old daughter who is studying in nursery and his wife is expecting their second child in January, 2027, for which her personal care and assistance are required. His father, aged about 70 years, is suffering from asthma and other age-related ailments, while his mother, aged about 65 years, is also suffering from hypertension and other geriatric problems. Both parents require regular personal attention and care, which is being provided by the applicant.

4. Learned counsel further submits that the applicant is an elected office bearer holding the post of Divisional Secretary of the All India Postal SC/ST Employees Welfare Association (Regd.), U.P. Circle, Ghaziabad Division, and is entitled to protection against transfer during the tenure of his office in terms of the departmental policy dated 06.06.1978, issued vide order No. 10-7/72-SR. The said policy also finds recognition under Rule 61(1), read with Section 33(3) and (4) of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957.

5. It is contended that the transfer guidelines dated 17.01.2019 provide for a normal tenure of three years at a post and six years at a station. Although premature transfer may be effected on administrative grounds, such reasons are required to be recorded in writing by the competent authority, and the approval of the superior authority is also required. Further, inter-station transfers are required to be restricted to the minimum in view of austerity measures.

SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

6. Learned counsel also draws attention to the Department of Posts' instructions dated 02.09.2025 and subsequent clarifications dated 21.11.2025 and 12.02.2026, particularly with regard to the competent authority and procedure for transfer/posting up to the HSG-II cadre. It is submitted that, in the applicant's case, the SSPOs, Ghaziabad Division, was the designated approving authority, and any such proposal was required to be forwarded through the prescribed channel with recommendations to the competent authority. However, no such proposal was initiated by the SSPOs, Ghaziabad Division, and the impugned order has been passed by the Circle Office by bypassing the prescribed hierarchy and procedure.

7. It is further submitted that the applicant submitted detailed representations dated 16.10.2026 and 02.11.2026 against the impugned transfer order, but the same are still pending consideration. Despite the applicant's request for an opportunity of personal hearing before the competent authority, no such opportunity has been granted to him.

8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, learned counsel submits that the impugned transfer order dated 14.10.2026 is arbitrary, contrary to the departmental transfer guidelines and applicable instructions, and has been issued without following the prescribed procedure. The applicant, therefore, prays that the impugned transfer/re-allotment order be quashed and set aside and the respondents be directed to permit him to continue at his present place of posting at Ghaziabad.

9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the Original Application and submits that the impugned transfer/re-allotment order has been passed by the competent authority in the administrative interest and in accordance with the departmental transfer policy and guidelines. It is contended that transfer is an incidence of service and the applicant cannot claim a right to remain posted at a particular place. The respondents further submit that the applicant's personal and family circumstances do not confer any vested right to seek cancellation of the transfer SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

order. Accordingly, the learned counsel prays for dismissal of the Original Application.

10. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for both the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, the Tribunal find that the applicant has already submitted representations dated 16.10.2026 and 02.11.2026 against the impugned transfer/re-allotment order dated 14.10.2026, which are stated to be pending consideration before the respondents. The applicant has raised certain personal and family difficulties, besides questioning the procedure adopted by the respondents in issuing the impugned transfer order. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the controversy, the Tribunal is of the considered view that the ends of justice would be served if the competent authority is directed to consider and decide the applicant's pending representations by passing a reasoned and speaking order.

11. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to consider and decide the applicant's representations dated 16.10.2026 and 02.11.2026, in accordance with the applicable rules and departmental guidelines, by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Till such decision is taken by the competent authority, the operation and implementation of the impugned transfer/re- allotment order dated 14.10.2026, insofar as it relates to the applicant, shall remain stayed.

12. With the aforesaid directions, the Original Application stands disposed of.

13. There shall be no order as to costs.

All pending M.As, if any, shall be treated as disposed of.

(Justice Rajiv Joshi) Member (Judicial) Sushil SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA