SATENDRA SINGH vs CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS

th
Reserved on 15 September, 2026

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH
ALLAHABAD
*

Original Application No. 290 of 2024


th
Allahabad this the 27 day of October, 2026


Hon’ble Mr. Rajnish Kumar Rai, Member-J


Satendra Singh, aged about 52 years, son of Late Ram Pratap Singh, R/o House
No. 67 Kareli, Nayapura, District-Allahabad-211016.
Applicant
By Advocate: Mr. A.D. Singh

Versus
1. Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of
Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes, North Block, New Delhi.
2. Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, U.P. East Lucknow.
3. Joint Commissioner (Headquarter) (Administration), Office of the Principal
Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, U.P. East Lucknow.
4. Income Tax Officer, (Headquarter) (Administration), Office of the Principal
Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, U.P. East Lucknow.
5. Income Tax Officer (V.U.)-I (1)(5), Agra Station at Kanpur.
Respondents
By Advocate: Mr. M.P. Mishra

O R D E R

Delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Rajnish Kumar Rai, Judicial Member

This O.A. has been filed by the applicant challenging the order
dated 31/10/2023 vide which the respondent No. 4 has cancelled the
NOC, which was issued by the competent authority for transferring the
applicant from one region to another region on loan basis for a period of
03 years. The applicant has filed this O.A. seeking the reliefs, which are
quoted herein below: -
“(i) Quash an impugned order dated 31.10.2023 passed by respondent
no. 4. (Annexure No. A-1 to this Compilation No.-I)
(ii) Directing the respondents to post the applicant in Allahabad
MANISH
MEHROTRA
pursuant to the no objection certificate of transfer posting Allahabad dated
13.06.2023 which has been approved by the Principal, Chief

2

Commissioner, Income Tax, U.P. East Lucknow/respondent No. 2 pursuant
to the circular of the Ministry dated 22.12.2020 with immediate effect with
all consequential benefits as provided in the rules.
(iii) Grant such any other and further relief to the applicant for which
this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case in favour of the applicant.
(iv) Allow the O.A. with cost of the litigation in favour of the applicant.”

2. The facts of the case, as per pleadings in the O.A., are that the
applicant was initially appointed on 17.07.1995 to the post of Lower
Division Clerk through Staff Selection Commission in the Ministry of Water
Resources, New Delhi. Subsequently, the applicant was appointed as Tax
Assistant in the Income Tax Department, Mainpuri on 02.11.2007 and
posted in the same capacity at Kanpur and he was further promoted to
the post of Income Tax Inspector on 08.03.2019. It is further pleaded
that the Ministry of Finance issued Circular dated 22.12.2020, which
provides transfer of an employee on ‘loan basis’ for a maximum period of
three years and further extension will be for a period of two years on the
basis of request made by the employee in continuation if, it is found
genuine. In pursuance thereto, the applicant has moved applications
dated 20.09.2021 and 22.04.2022 with requisite affidavits and medical
certificates of his wife before the respondent No. 2, in the light of Circular
dated 11.12.2020, seeking transfer and posting at Allahabad on loan
basis for a period of three years. The said request was duly forwarded by
letter dated 29.07.2022 to the Principal Chief Commissioner, Income Tax/
respondent No. 2, who has approved the transfer and posting on loan
basis for a period of three years. Subsequently, the respondent No. 4
vide its letter dated 13.06.2023 had issued ‘no objection certificate’ to
transfer the applicant from one region to another i.e. from U.P. West to
U.P. East at Allahabad on loan basis. Thereafter, a request was made by
the applicant vide letter dated 24.07.2023 for posting him at Prayagraj.
MANISH
MEHROTRA
However, the respondent No. 3 vide letter dated 24.08.2023 transferred
the applicant Kanpur to Basti instead of posting at Allahabad/Prayagraj,

3

with ulterior motive, as the transfer request of applicant from U.P. West
to U.P. East was sought on personal circumstances and family problem.
Thereafter, an application was made by the applicant for posting him at
Prayagraj/Allahabad in U.P. East region of Income Tax department.
Counsel for the applicant submitted that after this request was made, the
respondents vide impugned order dated 31.10.2023 has cancelled the ‘no
objection certificate’ dated 13.06.2023 for inter region transfer on the
ground that the applicant did not join at transfer place i.e. Basti and
subsequently vide order dated 20.11.2023, the applicant was relieved and
repatriated with immediate effect from U.P. East. However, after a
request was made vide letter dated 20.11.2023 for cancellation of
relieving order, the respondents vide office order dated 13.02.2024 has
cancelled the said order and posted the applicant in Kanpur and applicant
has been working at Kanpur since 15.02.2024. Counsel for the applicant
submitted that the aforesaid inter regional transfer order cannot be
cancelled vide impugned order as the same was issued in concurrence
with Ministry of Finance policy decision dated 22.12.2020 and once he has
been transferred another region for a period of three years, on loan basis,
the said ‘no objection certificate’ cannot be cancelled prior to period of
three years. He further submitted that the applicant is interested for
posting at Allahabad or nearest place to Allahabad/Prayagraj at
Kaushambi or at Fatehpur looking into the family circumstances at
Prayagraj, therefore, he has sought quashing of no objection refusal order
dated 31.10.2023 and posting at Allahabad or nearby place.

3. The respondents have filed the counter affidavit wherein they have
stated that the transfer and posting was made in pursuance to Principal
Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, U.P. East, Lucknow vide order dated
24.08.2023 at Basti on the verbal request of applicant that his
representation is pending before the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax,
Lucknow for posting at Allahabad/Prayagraj, he was allowed to work
MANISH
MEHROTRA
there. They further pleaded that as per Ministry of Finance Circular,

4

issued by the CBDT on 22.12.2020, the transfer on loan basis is to be
considered region wise and not station wise. Therefore, his request for
inter region transfer from U.P. West to U.P. East, on loan basis, was
accorded in accordance with the circular dated 22.12.2020 and forwarded
for his posting at U.P. East region and on account of non-joining at Basti,
impugned order dated 31.10.2023 was passed. Counsel for the
respondents submitted that the applicant has no vested right to be posted
at Allahabad/Prayagraj.

4. Heard, counsel for the parties and perused the pleading available
on record.

5. Considering the submission of counsel for the parties and looking
into the fact that the applicant requested for inter regional transfer from
U.P. West (Uttrakhand) has been accepted on loan basis for a period of
three years vide order dated 13.06.2023. Moreover, the applicant has
been working in Kanpur since 15.02.2024 hence, in such a situation,
there is no meaning of impugned order dated 31.10.2023 as applicant is
still working at Kanpur in U.P. (East) region. Therefore, impugned order
dated 31.10.2023 is quashed. Moreover, the applicant’s inter regional
transfer for a period of three years is going to be completed shortly and
O.A. is pending since 2024, in such a situation, I am in opinion to direct
the applicant to move a fresh comprehensive representation/application
before the competent authority amongst the respondents ventilating his
grievance with regard to further extension on loan basis if, personal
problem/illness in the family still exists within a period of three weeks
from the receipt of a certified copy of this Order, and thereafter
competent authority amongst the respondents has to consider his
extension for inter regional transfer and his posting at Prayagraj or
nearest place at Kaushambi/Fatehpur by passing a reasoned and speaking
order in accordance with law within a period of one month from the date
MANISH
of receipt of fresh representation along with a certified copy of this Order.
MEHROTRA

5

With the above directions, O.A. stands disposed of. All the pending MAs
shall be deemed to have been disposed of. No order as to costs.

(Rajnish Kumar Rai)
Member (Judicial)
/M.M/
MANISH
MEHROTRA