Central Administrative Tribunal
Rosan Kumar Sahoo vs EAST COAST RAILWAY on 12 November 2026
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK
Order Sheet
Item no.: 48
O.A./563/2026 (CUTTACK)
[ TRANSFER ]
With
M.A./546/2026
Court No.: 1
No of Adjournment: 2
Order Dated: 12/11/2026
ROSAN KUMAR SAHOO
Vs
EAST COAST RAILWAY
For Applicant(s) Advocate : N.R.Routray
For Respondent(s) Advocate : J.J.Bramha
Order of The Tribunal
The applicant has filed this OA challenging his transfer from JE/PW/Spl/TLHR to BTI Controller under Sr. DEN(Co-ord)/KUR vide order dated 14.07.2026, the order sparing him from his post dated 21.07.2026 and the order dated 28.09.2026 rejecting his representation dated 02.09.2026 inter alia stating that, after being relieved on 18.03.2025 from KUR, he joined as JE/PW/Spl/TLHR. While continuing as such, he was temporarily transferred vide order dated 26.12.2025, followed by order of his transfer from JE/PW/Spl/TLHR
to BTI Controller under Sr. DEN(Co-ord)/KUR vide order dated 14.07.2026
before completion of his minimum tenure at Talcher, which is in violation of the transfer guidelines issued by the Railways. The frequent and unscheduled transfer affects the education of his son who is prosecuting his study in class VII
in Prayas Vidya Mandir, Jajpur Road and, that, the transfer has not been made on recommendation of the Transfer and Placement Committee. The health condition of his parents has also been taken as one of the grounds to substantiate that his frequent and unscheduled transfer will have adverse effect on their health condition. Accordingly, he prayed to quash the order dated 14.07.2026, 21.07.2026 and 18.09.2026. The above facts are borne out from the record and reiterated by the Ld Counsel appearing for the applicant.
2. This matter was listed on 12.10.2026 for considering on the question of admission and grant of ad interim order prayed for in the OA. Ld. Counsel for the respondents had sought some time to obtain instruction and file objection. This Bench while allowing opportunity to the respondents to file their objection, by way of ad interim measure, directed that till the next date, status quo in respect of continuance of the applicant at his present place of posting shall be maintained, which order has been continuing till date. Respondents filed their objection inter alia stating therein that
3. At present, only one Sr.Section Engineer is available in Engineering Control (BTI) at Khurda Road which is causing administrative hardship adversely affecting the day-to-day functioning of Engineering Control at Khurda Road. In view of the essential operational and administrative requirements of the said unit, deployment of a JE at Engineering Control, Khurda, was considered necessary. Accordingly, the transfer of applicant from the office of SSE (P.Way)/Talcher to Engineering Control (BTI
Control), Khurda Road, was necessitated to meet the essential service to run the Railway Administration. Consequently, the transfer order of the applicant was issued vide DRM
(P)/KUR's
Office
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
7
Decisions referred to
In this index
2
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Order
No. P/E/Engg./96/2026 dated 14.07.2026, on the recommendation of the Placement Committee comprising three members, namely, APO/Engg./KUR, ADEN/Sett./KUR and ADFM-III/KUR, and with the approval of Sr. DEN (Co-Ord)/KUR dated 14.07.2026. The Railway is providing essential service to general public, therefore, for smooth administration and proper running of the Railways, the authority is vested with all discretion and power to transfer an employee either temporarily or permanent basis at any point of time even before completion of the minimum tenure provided in transfer guidelines. Hence the transfer of the applicant from SSE/P.Way/Talcher to Engineering Control (B?? Control), Khurda Road vide order dated 14.07.2026 was made, which cannot be said to be deliberate or intentional rather following the Railway Board's letter dated 10.06.2014 and Rule 4 of Master Circular No.24 dated 17.08.2023. According to them, at his transferred place of posting at Khurda, there is adequate educational institution available including the Kendriya Vidyalaya where the applicant get his son admitted without hampering his educational need. Hence, respondents have prayed that the OA being devoid of any merit is liable to be dismissed by vacating the ad interim order dated 12.10.2026. The facts noted above are borne out from the record and reiterated by the Ld. Counsel for the respondents in course of hearing.
4. Heard.
5. After giving consideration to the facts and submissions noted above, we have perused the records.
6. The facts that the applicant is holding a transferrable post and transfer is an incident of service are not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the transfer of the applicant is from JE/PW/Spl/TLHR to BTI Controller under Sr. DEN(Co-ord)/KUR and the distance by road in between is about 160 Kms. The applicant alleges that his transfer is made intentionally and deliberately without any supporting evidence to the said effect when the same was denied by the respondents by stating that his transfer was necessitated in administrative/pubic interest for smooth running of the Railway Administration. The respondents also placed on record the copy of the recommendation of the Transfer and Placement Committee to substantiate that the stand of the applicant that his transfer was made without any such recommendation. To the extent of judicial interference in the day to day transfer and posting of Govt. servants from one place to other is well settled in various decisions, suffice it to place the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Mrs. Shilpi Bose & Others vs State of Bihar & Others, AIR 1991 SC 532; Union of India v. S.L. Abbas, (1993) 4 SCC 357, Rajendra Roy vs Union of India & Anr., AIR 1993 SC 1236; State of U.P. & Another versus Siya Ram & Another, (2004) 7 SCC 405; Union of India and others Vs. Janardhan Debanath and another, 2004 (4) SCC 243; State of U.P. Vs. Gobardhan Lal, (2004) 11 SCC 402; and, Rajendra Singh Vs State of U.P., (2009) 15 SCC 178. On examination of the ingredients fixed in the said decisions vis a vis the grounds stated by the applicant in this OA, we find no ground to interfere in the present order of transfer of the applicant, which has been made in administrative interest on the recommendation of the Transfer and Placement Committee and, therefore, we are no inclined to exercise judicial review on the transfer and posting of the applicant. However, considering the passionate prayer, orally made by the Ld Counsel for the applicant in course of hearing before the court, since the final examination of his son is likely to be held during February-March, 2027, keeping in mind the observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Director of School Education Vs. O. Karuppa Thevan, 1994 SCC Suppl.
(2) 666, the respondents are directed to allow the applicant to continue at JE/PW/Spl/TLHR till the end of the final examination of his son in Class VII in case he furnishes an undertaking to the above effect within a period of ten days hence.
7. With the observations and directions made above, this OA stands disposed of making the costs easy. MA, if any, stands disposed of accordingly. Pramod Kumar Das Member (A) SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA Member (J) Ravi Kumar ( ps )