SENTHIL KUMAR B vs BSNL
- Court
- Central Administrative Tribunal
1 OA 871/2025
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH
OA/310/00871/2025
th
Dated, the 7 day of October, Two Thousand Twenty Six
CORAM :
HON’BLE MR.M.SWAMINATHAN, MEMBER (J)
&
HON’BLE MR.M.L.SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (A)
1.Mr. Senthilkumar B
S/o Balasubramanian V,
Residing at: 1/2, South Aranmanai Street,
Tharangambadi Road,
Mayiladuthurai – 609001.
2. Mr. T.K. Kumar
S/o G. Karuppiah,
Residing at: 30A, Rosilin Nagar, PDK Road,
Thanjavur – 613005.
3. Ms. Arul Selvi V.T
D/o Tamilarasan
Residing at: 7A, Abiramipuram,
Thanjavur. … Applicants
By Advocate .. M/s.S.Siva Rama Rajeswaran
Vs.
1. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL),
Represented by its Chairman Cum Managing Director,
Corporate Office, Bharat Sanchar Bhawan,
Harish Chandra Mathur Lane, New Delhi - 110 001.
2. The Director (HR),
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL),
Bharat Sanchar Bhavan, Corporate Office,
Janpath, New Delhi – 110 001.
3. The Chief General Manager,
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited
Tamil Nadu Circle, New Administrative Building,
6th Floor, 16 Greams Road, Chennai - 600 006.
4. The General Manager (HR & ADMIN)
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited
Tamil Nadu Circle, New Administrative Building,
6th Floor, 16 Greams Road, Chennai - 600 006.
2 OA 871/2025
5. The Deputy General Manager (HR & ADMIN)
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited
Tamil Nadu Circle, New Administrative Building,
6th Floor, 16 Greams Road, Chennai - 600 006. … Respondents
By Advocate .. Mr.M.Kishore Kumar SPC
3 OA 871/2025
ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr.M.L.SRIVASTAVA, Member(A))
The applicants have filed the present OA under Section 19 of the
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:
"to Declare that Clause 12 of the BSNL Employee Transfer Policy, issued vide No.
6-1/2007-Restg dated 07.05.2008, to the extent of that it includes the period of
service rendered by an executive in the previous nonexecutive cadre shall also
be included for calculating the total stay of the said executive in their respective
station for the purpose of intra-circle transfers, is arbitrary, unreasonable, and
violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, and consequently
strike down the said portion of Clause 12 as unconstitutional and unenforceable
and to set aside the order passed by the 5th Respondent in TNCO-
11/20(13)/1/2022-HR Unit Co (485885) dated 22.07.2025 and pass such
further or other orders as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper. "
2. The brief facts of the case as stated by the applicants are as under:
2.1 The Applicants were originally appointed in the early 2000s as Telecom
Technical Assistants (TTAs), a non-executive cadre post, and were later
promoted to the Executive Cadre of JTO through the Limited Departmental
Competitive Examination (LDCE) in the year 2016. Upon such promotion, the
Applicants had technically resigned from their previous posts, and their terms
of employment stood reset under the Executive cadre rules. The grievance of
the Applicants arises out of a transfer order issued by the 5th Respondent
dated 22.07.2025 bearing reference TNCO11/20(13)/1/2022-HR Unit Co
(485885). Through this impugned order, the Applicants were transferred to
distant SSAs on the basis of their alleged "long stay" in their present station.
However, while calculating such long stay, the Respondents have erroneously
included the Applicants’ past tenure in the non-executive cadre (TTA), which
is impermissible in law and contrary to BSNL’s own internal policy. The BSNL
Corporate Office had issued a clear policy clarification vide Letter No. 5-
4 OA 871/2025
32/2017-Estt-IV/Misc. dated 31.03.2017 stating that in cases where a non-
executive employee such as a TTA has entered the Executive cadre through
promotion or absorption and has tendered a technical resignation from the
earlier post, the service rendered in the non-executive cadre shall not be taken
into account for calculating stay in the Executive cadre for the purpose of intra-
circle transfers. Despite the said policy, the Respondents have mechanically
applied Clause 12(i) of the BSNL Employees Transfer Policy dated 07.05.2008,
which mandates counting previous cadre service for stay calculations, thereby
causing grave prejudice to the Applicants.
2.2 The Applicants further submit that there is no intelligible differentia
between JTOs who entered the Executive cadre through LDCE and those who
entered through direct recruitment after technical resignation. Yet, the direct
recruits have been exempted from having their previous service counted, while
the Applicants have been selectively penalised. The said colleagues of the
Applicants enjoy all the benefits from their earlier cadre despite the technical
resignation same as the Applicants and all those who were promoted through
LDCE examination. There is no difference between the Applicants and those
who got promoted via LDCE examination into the JTO position and those who
got into JTO cadre though direct recruitment examinations for all practical
purposes. This selective application is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India, as both sets of officers are now identically placed within
the same cadre and governed by the same service rules 5. Clause 12(i) of the
Transfer Policy, to the extent it mandates inclusion of previous cadre service
for transfer purposes, is arbitrary, unreasonable and unconstitutional. It stands
in direct conflict with the Corporate Office’s binding clarification issued in 2017,
5 OA 871/2025
and therefore deserves to be declared void to that extent. The impugned
transfer order issued pursuant to this flawed policy application is equally
unsustainable and liable to be quashed. The Applicants have submitted written
representations to the competent authority on 28.07.2025, seeking
reconsideration of their transfer orders in light of the 2017 clarification, but no
relief has been granted. Being aggrieved by the above order, the applicant has
filed the present OA seeking the aforesaid relief.
3. After notice, the respondents have entered appearance through their
counsel and filed their reply statement refuting all the averments made in the
OA except those which are admitted on facts and also reiterating the
statements made by them in the impugned order and in the reply filed in the
earlier OA, OA 1268/2011.
3.1 The respondents have submitted that the OA is liable to be dismissed
mainly on the following grounds:
(i) The transfer orders impugned in the OA were issued purely on
administrative grounds, in accordance with the prevailing BSNL Transfer Policy
and in the larger interest of the organization.
(i) The Applicants have not demonstrated any malafide or violation of law and
have only raised personal grievances.
(i) The applicants have already been relieved from their previous stations and
have joined at the new place of posting on transfer.
The OA has therefore become infructuous.
3.2 The respondents further submitted that the Applicants’ contention that
they should be treated as fresh appointees in the Executive Cadre and that
their seniority or station tenure should be reset is not supported by any policy.
6 OA 871/2025
The inclusion of their earlier service is consistent with BSNL Transfer Policy
dated 07.05.2008, which states that "total stay of the executives shall be
counted including that belonging to previous cadre(s)/grade(s) irrespective of
category.” The differentiation sought to be made between LDCE promotees and
Direct Recruits is valid since Direct Recruits had to submit technical resignation
and join afresh, which the Applicants did not. Further, the clarification relied
upon by the Applicants vide BSNL CO Letter dated 31.03.2017 applies
specifically to those executives who have submitted technical resignation from
the non-executive cadre and joined the executive cadre afresh via direct
recruitment. The Applicants, being promotees, never resigned from their posts
and hence their tenure is continuous. Therefore, the said clarification does not
apply to them.
3.3 The respondents further submitted that the transfer policy has been
applied uniformly. The colleagues of the applicants who entered the JTO cadre
through Direct Recruitment after tendering technical resignation are governed
by a separate set of rules distinct from those applicable to LDCE promotees.
The mode of entry, nature of appointment, and pay fixation are different in
both cases, and hence they cannot be equated. Departmentally promoted JTOs
and Direct Recruit JTOs constitute different classes and this classification is
already recognized under BSNL guidelines. Further, the Applicants' challenge
to the constitutional validity of Clause 12(i) of the BSNL Employees’ Transfer
Policy dated 07.05.2008 is untenable. The policy is a well-settled
administrative framework, uniformly applicable to all executives across BSNL,
and has stood the test of time. Transfers are a normal incidence of service and
fall squarely within the prerogative of the employer to ensure organizational
7 OA 871/2025
efficiency, manpower rationalization, and business continuity. It is a settled
position of law that unless mala fides or violation of statutory provisions are
demonstrated, the validity of a transfer policy cannot be called into question.
3.4 The respondents further submitted that, although the Applicants
submitted their representations on 28.07.2025, they approached the Hon'ble
Tribunal almost immediately thereafter on 01.08.2025, without affording
reasonable time for consideration and response by the competent authorities
and hence the OA is premature. The Respondents are well within their
administrative discretion to issue and implement transfer orders in accordance
with organizational requirements and the pendency or recent submission of a
representation does not, by itself, create a bar against such action.
3.5 In support of their contentions, the respondents have relied upon the
order of the Ernakulam Bench of this Tribunal dated 28.02.2022 in OA
675/2021 wherein Section C, Rule 12(i) of the BSNL Employee Transfer Policy
th
issued on 7 May 2008 (corrected upto 24.11.2014) is challenged and the said
OA was dismissed. Hence, they prayed for dismissal of the instant OA.
4. The applicant has filed a rejoinder and written arguments wherein it is
contended that several other similarly placed employees have been permitted
to continue in their respective SSAs for prolonged periods without being
subjected to transfer. The employees, Smt. Chandra Prabha at Madurai SSA;
Sri Ponnivalavan at SZBC; Sri Thiagarajan and Smt. Santha at Trichy SSA; Sri
Venkadesan at Karaikudi SSA; Sri Kamalakannan at Salem SSA; Sri
Sureshsundar Babu at Coimbatore SSA; Smt. Manjula at Thanjavur SSA; and
Smt. Shanthi at Cuddalore SSA, despite their long and continuous stay in the
respective SSAs, no transfer action has been initiated against them, thereby
8 OA 871/2025
demonstrating the arbitrariness and discriminatory conduct of the
Respondents. The applicants submitted that the officers who have been
serving for extraordinarily long periods in the same SSA have been allowed to
continue, whereas officers with comparatively shorter tenures have been
transferred, which clearly defeats the very purpose of long-stay transfers.
4.1 The applicants relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of Union of India Vs. Atul Shukla (2014) 10 SCC 432 wherein it
is held that, “classification of employees based on the method of their
recruitment has long since been declared impermissible by this Court. There
can be no differential treatment between an employee directly recruited vis-
a-vis another who is promoted. So long as the two employees are a part of
the same cadre, they cannot be treated differently either for purposes of pay
and allowances or other conditions of service". The order of the Ernakulam
CAT relied upon by the respondents is not a binding precedence in the present
case as the facts and grounds are materially distinguishable in both cases. The
2017 clarification which effectively excludes the application of the transfer
policy in the case of JTO (DR), was not considered at all in the said judgment
and the issue of discrimination and violation of Article 14 was not at all raised
or adjudicated therein. Even in the said judgment, it has been observed that
policy decisions are open to challenge on the ground of arbitrariness and
violation of constitutional principles. Hence the said judgment is per incuriam
and thus cannot be treated as a precedent in the present case.
5. Heard the rival arguments of both parties, perused the material placed
on record and scrutinized the whole conspectus of the case.
6. The fulcrum of the case revolves around clause 12(i) of the BSNL
9 OA 871/2025
Employees Transfer Policy dated 07.05.2008. It has been submitted by the
learned counsel for the respondents that the applicants were appointed as
TTAs in the early 2000s. Their services in the same SSA are continuous and
uninterrupted. The fact that they were promoted through LDCE does not alter
the applicability of the Transfer Policy. All executives are subject to rotational
transfer policy after completion of 4 years in a post or 10 years in a
station/SSA. The applicants have each rendered around 23 years of service in
the same SSA. It is further submitted and denied that the initial appointment
as TTA implied immunity from transfer in future. Their service in the same
SSA is continuous and uninterrupted. Upon promotion to the executive cadre,
the applicants became subject to the executive transfer policy which includes
calculation of stay from the date of initial posting in the station irrespective of
cadre. Further, the contention of the applicants that they should be treated as
fresh appointees in the executive cadre and that their seniority or station
tenure should be reset is not supported by any policy. The inclusion of their
earlier service is consistent with BSNL Transfer Policy dated 07.05.2008 which
states that, “total stay of the executives shall be counted including that
belonging to previous cadre(s)/grade(s) irrespective of category.” The
differentiation sought to be made between LDCE promotes and direct recruits
is valid since direct recruits had to submit technical resignation and join afresh,
which the applicants did not. Further, the applicants have cited the letter dated
31.03.2017 of the Deputy General Manager addressed to the Chief General
Manager, BSNL wherein it is clarified that the period spent in previous cadre of
TTA will not be counted for stay in SSA/Station as the candidates have
tendered technical resignation to the post of TTA. The applicants in the instant
10 OA 871/2025
OA do not come within the ambit of this communication as this pertains to the
executives who have tendered technical resignation and joined afresh in the
BSNL, whereas in the case of the applicants, they are promotees from the
cadre of TTA to the executive cadre.
7. The Ernakulam Bench of CAT in OA 675/2021 has dealt with similar issue
and the relevant para of the order dated 28.02.2011 in the said OA is extracted
as under:
“10. The above interpretation appears to us as the logical conclusion for
creating a BA Long Stay List and using it as the basis for ordering transfer
of the applicants at Sl.No.1-3 in the O.A to Lakshadweep. Going by this
logic, we therefore do not find any discrimination or illegality or malafide
shown in the transfer of the applicants at Sl.Nos.1 to 3 to Lakshadweep.
We are thus not in a position to quash the orders as prayed for at
Annexure A-7 and Annexure A-9. We also do not find the Section C,
Clause 12 (i) unjustified or illogical as it appears to recognise specifically
that long stay within one area should be primarily taken into
consideration when issuing transfer orders. This seems to be a fair and
acceptable provision. We are thus not interfering with the Employee
Transfer Policy as prayed for by the applicants.“
8. It has been reiterated through various judicial pronouncements including
those of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that transfer is an incidence of service and
not a vested right. The transfer policy of the organisation is the guiding
principle to streamline the transfer of its employees. T he Hon'ble Supreme
Court in a catena of cases, viz., Union of India v. S.L. Abbas (1993) 4 SCC
357, SK Naushad Rahman & Ors. Vs. Union of India (2022) 12 SCC 1,
etc has held that transfer is an inherent incident of public service and a
condition of employment, often mandated by administrative exigencies .
Employees have no vested right for a particular position or location, and courts
rarely interfere with transfers unless they are malicious, arbitrary, or violate
statutory rules. In the case of Somesh Tiwari vs Union Of India & Ors
11 OA 871/2025
(2009) (2) SCC 592, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that, “Indisputably
an order of transfer is an administrative order. There cannot be any doubt
whatsoever that transfer, which is ordinarily an incident of service should not
be interfered with, save in cases where inter alia mala fide on the part of the
authority is proved. Mala fide is of two kinds - one malice in fact and the second
malice in law.“
9. The respondents in their reply have mentioned that clause 7 of the
transfer policy also details the provision for transfer. The said clause is
extracted as under:
“7. Transfer on Administrative Grounds :
(a) All employees of the company including those belonging to Circle/SSA cadres are
liable to be transferred to any place of Company’s operations unless it is expressly
ordered otherwise for any particular class or classes of employees. Transfers would
not, however, be ordered except when advisable in the Company’s interests.
(b) Further, for employees belonging to Circle/SSA Cadre, consequent to joining on
transfer to new Circle/SSA, his/her place in the new gradation list would be assigned
in same manner as would be assigned to him/her had he/she been originally
recruited in the new Circle/SSA.
(c) The competent authority for considering such transfer cases shall be as prescribed
in para 10 below.
10. In the instant OA, the referred to provision/clause of the BSNL Transfer
Policy dated 07.05.2008 including subsequent amendments issued from time
to time in this regard are not in conflict with a statute or statutory service rule.
It is not arbitrary or discriminatory as it is uniformly applied to all the
concerned employees, taking into consideration their continuity of service. No
malafide or an attempt intended to victimise any employee has been proved.
The policy has been approved by the competent authority following due
process of law. It has not been found that the provision is contrary to the
service rules or other binding statutory requirement. Further, the transfer
policy is an executive/administrative guideline and violation of it, if any,
12 OA 871/2025
ordinarily does not itself create an enforceable legal right. Also, two persons
holding the same post/cadre can, in principle, be governed by different transfer
provisions if the applicable policy/service rules validly make a distinction based
on their mode of recruitment (Direct recruitment vs. Promotion). The
applicants traversed their path and are in the current position through
promotion and have spent more than 23 years continuously in the station they
are currently posted and are working in the same organisation
11. In the result, the balance of convenience is not in favour of the applicants
and the applicants have failed to demonstrate any illegality in the extant
transfer policy of BSNL and the OA deserves to be dismissed. OA is dismissed.
No order as to costs.
(M.L.SRIVASTAVA) (M.SWAMINATHAN)
MEMBER(A) MEMBER (J)
MT 07.10.2026
Digitally signed by
THANGAM M
Date: 2026.11.02 12:46:57
+05'30'
THANGAM M