Ritu vs DEPTT OF ELECTRONICS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
- Court
- Central Administrative Tribunal
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
O.A.No. 060/617/2026
Pronounced on : 13.08.2026
(Reserved on : 04.08.2026)
HON’BLE MRS. ANJALI BHAWRA, MEMBER (A)
Ms. Ritu w/o Sh. Kamal Bhalla, aged 52 years, resident of House No.95,
Phase-4, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab.
...Applicant
(Advocate: Sh. K.B. Sharma)
VERSUS
1. Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Electronics &
Information Technology (MeitY), Electronics Niketan, -6, CGO Complex, New
Delhi-110003.
2. The Director General, National Institute of Electronics and Information
Technology (NIELIT), NIELIT, Plot No.03, PSP Pocket, Sector 8, Dwarka,
New Delhi-110077.
3. Executive Director, National Institute of Electronics and Information
Technology (NIELIT), Ropar, Punjab.
…Respondent(s)
(Advocate: Sh. Sanjay Goyal, Sr. CGSC along with Ms. Jyotika Panesar and
Ms. Jashandeep Kaur for R/1, Sh. K.L. Singla for R/2 & R/3).
Satyanar
Digitally signed by Satyanarayana Vanapalli
DN: C=IN, O=GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, OU=
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
Phone=
6f592c8349948910e1de6c2931b0bac4a9bb73
4425eb6ffc8a5e181f034b2b77, PostalCode=
342006, S=RAJASTHAN, SERIALNUMBER=
053f205c047576d405aa21e40b02de09453dd2
ea8a478f74d402fb5b47c88e59, CN=
Satyanarayana Vanapalli
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.08.20 10:17:22+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
ayana
Vanapalli
2
O R D E R
HON’BLE MRS. ANJALI BHAWRA, MEMBER (A):
1. This Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the
Administrative Tribunals Act 1985, whereby, the applicant has sought for the
following relief:
ii) That impugned transfer order dated 24.03.2026 and relieving order
dated 30.03.2026 (Annexure A/3 Colly) qua applicant be quashed and set
aside, in the interest of justice.
iii) That the impugned letters dated 01.04.2026, 24.04.2026 (Annexure
A/10 & A/9) be also quashed and set aside.
iv) That the action of the respondents in not considering the request of
the applicant in terms of the DoPT OMs dated 30.09.2009/24.11.2022 (A-7)
revised from time to time, be declared illegal and arbitrary and
discriminatory violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of the India,
keeping in view the fact that the respondents have considered the request of
other CSBOs (Couple cases) in terms of DoPT OMs.
v) That an appropriate direction be issued to the respondents to consider
the case of the applicant for allowing her to continue at present place of
posting in terms of DoPT OMs dated 30.09.2009/24.11.2022 (A-7), revised
from time to time, keeping in view the fact that husband of the applicant is
working in U.T. Chandigarh.
Or alternatively, the respondents be directed to consider her case for
posting at nearby stations, in the interest of justice.”
2. The applicant in its OA has submitted the following:-
i) The applicant initially joined service as a Senior Clerk on 19.04.1997 in
the respondent department. She was promoted as Assistant, Finance Officer
and she was further promoted as Assistant Director (Finance) Group-A. The
applicant's husband is working as Deputy Executive Engineer in a Public
Service Undertaking (PSU) at Punjab Communications Limited and is
presently posted at Mohali, Punjab. The applicant is residing at Mohali. A
copy of the ID card of the husband of the applicant is enclosed as Annexure
A/1. The applicant is also under-going treatment for Gynecological
supervision and frequent weekly follow ups. The applicant's ongoing medical
treatment at Chandigarh is at a critical stage. Copy of the medical certificate
issued by medical surgeon is annexed as Annexure A/2. The father-in-law of
Satyanar
Digitally signed by Satyanarayana Vanapalli
DN: C=IN, O=GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, OU=
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
Phone=
6f592c8349948910e1de6c2931b0bac4a9bb73
4425eb6ffc8a5e181f034b2b77, PostalCode=
342006, S=RAJASTHAN, SERIALNUMBER=
053f205c047576d405aa21e40b02de09453dd2
ea8a478f74d402fb5b47c88e59, CN=
Satyanarayana Vanapalli
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.08.20 10:17:22+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
ayana
Vanapalli
3
the applicant has already expired and mother-in-law of the applicant is
dependent upon the applicant, who is suffering from serious multiple
diseases. The mother-in-law of the applicant is completely dependent upon
the applicant and at this stage she needs care. Further, the mother of the
applicant is also suffering from various multiple diseases.
ii) The respondents issued impugned transfer order, whereby the
applicant was ordered to be posted from present place of posting i.e.
Ropar to Ajmer vide order dated 24.03.2026 (Annexure A/3). The
name of the applicant is at Sr. No.11 in the aforesaid transfer order. The
distance between Ropar to Ajmer is more than 700 KMs. Aggrieved by the
action of the respondents in transferring her, she submitted a representation
to the respondents on 25.03.2026 (Annexure A/4), wherein she sought for
modification / cancellation of her transfer orders on various pleas i.e. her
own medical grounds and medical grounds of her mother-in-law and mother,
etc. But the same remained without any response and instead of deciding
her representation, they relived her on 30.03.2026 itself. The applicant was
on medical leave and the respondents relieved her during her medical leave.
iii) It is submitted by the applicant that the applicant is a Group 'A'
Gazetted Officer in the respondent department and while posting her the
respondents have not made Civil Services Board and straight away the
impugned transfer order has been issued by them which is against the
mandate of Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T.S.R
Subramanian and others Vs. Union of India and others , W.P. (Civil)
No.82/2011 decided on 31.10.2013 as well as Govt. of India O.M.s. Thus,
the impugned order deserves to be set aside in view the fact that the
respondents have failed to conduct/made the Board as evident from the
transfer order also. In compliance to judgment of the Supreme of Court in
the case of T.S.R Subramanian (Supra) the DoPT has issued O.M dated
02.07.2015 (Annexure A/5) on the subject of framing the transfer policy
Satyanar
Digitally signed by Satyanarayana Vanapalli
DN: C=IN, O=GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, OU=
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
Phone=
6f592c8349948910e1de6c2931b0bac4a9bb73
4425eb6ffc8a5e181f034b2b77, PostalCode=
342006, S=RAJASTHAN, SERIALNUMBER=
053f205c047576d405aa21e40b02de09453dd2
ea8a478f74d402fb5b47c88e59, CN=
Satyanarayana Vanapalli
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.08.20 10:17:22+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
ayana
Vanapalli
4
in all cadres and the Nodal Ministry has directed to all the
Ministries/Departments to frame transfer policies in all cadre and Constitute
the CSB Board and it has also been observed that action taken report be
communicated to the Nodal Ministry by 10.07.2015. The respondents have
framed transfer guidelines dated 13.09.2022 (Annexure A/6) for the
management of transfer of the employees like the applicant. From the
perusal of the transfer policy, it reveals that neither the respondents have
specified tenure of the employee nor they have mentioned the provisions for
spouse case or for Disabled employee or for deferment of posting on the
ground of middle of academic session of the employee etc, which is also
against the mandate of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of T.S.R
Subramanian and others Vs. Union of India and others , W.P. (Civil)
No.82/2011 decided on 31.10.2013 as well as Govt. of India as well as DOPT
OMs.
iv) While passing the impugned transfer orders, the respondents have not
made any CSB as mandated by the Hon'ble Apex Court. The applicant is a
Group 'A' Officer, therefore, the respondents were required to make the
CSB, whereas, they have failed to do the same. Thus, the impugned order
passed by the respondents deserves to be quashed and set aside. The
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension Department of Personnel
and Training, Govt. of India issued an O.M. regarding the posting of husband
and wife at the same station with the purpose to enable them to lead a
normal family life and to ensure the education and welfare of their children.
Basic intent of the said notification was to give importance to the
enhancement of woman's status in all sectors and all walks of life by
considering the issue/problems involves in the life of women employed to
Govt. and the Public Sector Undertaking. The Govt. issued the said
notification of 1986 in order to ease the employment issues, that in case of
transfer of one spouse from one station to the station of the other spouse,
Satyanar
Digitally signed by Satyanarayana Vanapalli
DN: C=IN, O=GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, OU=
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
Phone=
6f592c8349948910e1de6c2931b0bac4a9bb73
4425eb6ffc8a5e181f034b2b77, PostalCode=
342006, S=RAJASTHAN, SERIALNUMBER=
053f205c047576d405aa21e40b02de09453dd2
ea8a478f74d402fb5b47c88e59, CN=
Satyanarayana Vanapalli
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.08.20 10:17:22+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
ayana
Vanapalli
5
efforts would be made for unification of the spouses. It has been stated, in
the said notification that Govt. desires that all other cases the cadre
controlling authority should consider such request with utmost sympathy.
The Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension Department of
Personnel and Training, Govt. of India issued O.M. dated 12.06.1997, in
reference to the O.M. dated 30.04.1986 regarding posting of husband and
wife at the same station and widened the scope of the husband and wife to
be posted at same station by including the provisions that where posts at
appropriate level exist in the Organization at the same station, the husband
and wife may invariably be posted together in order to enable them to lead a
normal family life and look after the welfare of the children.
v) Further, the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension
Department of Personnel and Training, Govt. of India issued an O.M. dated
30.9.2009 (Annexure A/7 Colly), with purpose to make some
addition/changes in the earlier notification/O.M. dated 30.04.1986,
12.06.1997 regarding posting of husband and wife at the same station.
Subsequently, Govt. of India issued another OM dated 24.11.2022
(Annexure A/8) wherein the provisions of couple posting were reiterated.
While passing the impugned transfer orders, the respondents have failed to
consider the aforesaid OMs issued by Govt. of India, wherein it has been
mentioned that husband and wife should be posted at the same station
subject to the availability of vacancies. The husband of the applicant is
posted at Mohali under Punjab Government. The respondents have failed to
adhere the aforesaid OMs while passing the impugned orders. Thus, on this
account the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside.
vi) The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of S. K. Nausad Rahaman vs
Union Of India on 10 March, 2022, Civil Appeal No. 1243/2022, decided on
10.03.2022 wherein it has been held that:-
Satyanar
Digitally signed by Satyanarayana Vanapalli
DN: C=IN, O=GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, OU=
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
Phone=
6f592c8349948910e1de6c2931b0bac4a9bb73
4425eb6ffc8a5e181f034b2b77, PostalCode=
342006, S=RAJASTHAN, SERIALNUMBER=
053f205c047576d405aa21e40b02de09453dd2
ea8a478f74d402fb5b47c88e59, CN=
Satyanarayana Vanapalli
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.08.20 10:17:22+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
ayana
Vanapalli
6
"53. In considering whether any modification of the policy is necessary, they
must bear in mind the need for a proportional relationship between the
objects of the policy and the means which are adopted to implement it. The
policy above all has to fulfill the test of legitimacy, suitability, necessity and
of balancing the values which underlie a decision making process informed
by constitutional values. Hence while we uphold the judgment of the Division
Bench of the Kerala High Court, we leave it open to the respondents to
revisit the policy to accommodate posting of spouses, the needs of the
disabled and compassionate grounds. Such an exercise has to be left within
the domain of the executive, ensuring in the process that constitutional
values which underlie Articles 14, 15 and 16 and Article 21 of the
Constitution are duly protected. The appeals shall be disposed of in the
above terms. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of."
The action on the part of the respondents is illegal, arbitrary as they have
failed to mention/ specify in the transfer policy, regarding spouse posting,
medical grounds, disability grounds, compassionate grounds, etc.
vii) Further, the applicant filed O.A. No.418/2026 before this Tribunal
seeking quashing of the transfer orders and further prayed for stay of the
transfer order and the aforesaid O.A. was listed on 07.04.2026, notice of
motion was issued and no stay was granted to the applicant. During the
pendency of the aforesaid O.A., the respondents rejected the representation
of the applicant on 24.04.2026 (Annexure A/9) and the applicant has
withdrawn the aforesaid O.A. on 05.05.2026 with liberty to file a fresh one
to assail the order dated 24.04.2026. Copy of the order dated 05.05.2026
has not been uploaded yet. Earlier, the respondents also rejected the
application of the applicant on 01.04.2026 (Annexure A/10). From the
perusal of the letters dated 01.04.2026, 24.04.2026 it reveals that the
respondents have passed cryptic orders, while rejecting the application of
the applicant. It's a non speaking order, therefore, the same deserves to be
quashed and set aside. No one vice the applicant has been posted by the
respondents and vacancies at Ropar are available with the respondents
despite that the applicant has been posted at Ajmer. The transfer orders of
number of employees were stayed by the CAT PB, New Delhi, copies of the
same are enclosed as Annexure A/11 (Colly).
Satyanar
Digitally signed by Satyanarayana Vanapalli
DN: C=IN, O=GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, OU=
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
Phone=
6f592c8349948910e1de6c2931b0bac4a9bb73
4425eb6ffc8a5e181f034b2b77, PostalCode=
342006, S=RAJASTHAN, SERIALNUMBER=
053f205c047576d405aa21e40b02de09453dd2
ea8a478f74d402fb5b47c88e59, CN=
Satyanarayana Vanapalli
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.08.20 10:17:22+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
ayana
Vanapalli
7
3. Notice was issued to the respondents. Respondent no.1 has preferred
not to file any reply. The written statement has been filed on behalf of
respondents no.2 & 3 wherein preliminary objection stating that the present
O.A. deserves to dismissed with exemplary costs on the following grounds:
i) The previous O.A. No.418 of 2026 filed by the petitioner challenging
the same transfer order dated 24.03.2026, was dismissed as withdrawn by
this Tribunal on 05.05.2026 (Annexure R-2/1) and no liberty was granted by
this Tribunal to assail the same transfer order dated 24.03.2026 (A/3).
Under the circumstances, fresh proceedings on the same cause of action are
barred and the concluded pleadings cannot be reopened and re-agitated.
The principle of constructive res-judicata applies to service jurisprudence as
well.
ii) The applicant has not been transferred even once since her joining the
respondent organisation NIELIT at Chandigarh in 1997, till her present
transfer though she has availed four promotions during that period
and though, as per conditions of her service, her posts were transferable
PAN India. There is no policy and rule which provide her right to remain
posted for ever at the same place of her posting.
Reliance has been placed on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case titled National Hydro Electrical Power
Corporation Limited Vs. Shri Bhagwan - AIR 2001 SC 3309, wherein the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: -
"It is by now well-settled and often reiterated by this Court that no
Government servant or employee of public Undertaking has any legal
right to be posted forever at any one particular place since transfer of
a particular employee appointed to the class or category of
transferable posts from one place to other is not only an incident, but
a condition of service, necessary too in public interest and efficiency in
the public administration. Unless an order of transfer is shown to be an
outcome of malafide exercise of power or stated to be in violation of
statutory provisions prohibiting any such transfer, the Courts or the
Tribunals cannot interfere with such orders as a matter of routine, as
though they are the Appellate Authorities substituting their own
Satyanar
Digitally signed by Satyanarayana Vanapalli
DN: C=IN, O=GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, OU=
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
Phone=
6f592c8349948910e1de6c2931b0bac4a9bb73
4425eb6ffc8a5e181f034b2b77, PostalCode=
342006, S=RAJASTHAN, SERIALNUMBER=
053f205c047576d405aa21e40b02de09453dd2
ea8a478f74d402fb5b47c88e59, CN=
Satyanarayana Vanapalli
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.08.20 10:17:22+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
ayana
Vanapalli
8
decision for that of the Management, as against such orders passed in
the interest of administrative exigencies of the service concerned."
It is also submitted that the applicant at the time of her last promotion in
December, 2025 to the post of Assistant Director (Finance) Group 'A', has
herself undertaken as under:-
"I Ritu W/o Mr. Kamal Bhalla presently working in National Institute of
Electronics and information Technology Centre, Ropar, am aware of
the facts that as per the Transfer Policy of National Institute of
Electronics and Information Technology, I may be transferred
anywhere in the country for any assignment as deemed fit by the
Management.
2. I am also aware that in case I get promotion, then I will be given
more responsibilities, which include technical and administrative jobs
and I am ready to shoulder the additional responsibility besides
teaching in the interest of the Organisation.
3. I am also aware that with the elevation of myself, I have to
shoulder more responsibilities and this may include meeting the target
fixed by the management as well as more focus on research.
4. I m also aware that I shall not ask for any extra furniture, fixture
and facilities to discharge my duties and responsibilities consequent
upon my promotion to next higher grade.
Hence this undertaking."
A copy of her undertaking dated 18.12.2025 is annexed as Annexure R-2/3.
Having accepted promotion with aforesaid undertaking, she is estopped from
challenging her present transfer and is rather bound to accept the same.
iii) It has been pleaded that the petitioner is misconstruing and
misleading this Tribunal by invoking DOPT guidelines for the relief of
cancellation of her instant transfer order (A/3) under DOPT's O.M. dated
02.07.2015 (A/5), dated 13.09.2022 (A/6) and dated 24.11.2022 (A/8)
which are not applicable to the applicant because neither she nor her
husband are either in All India Services or Central Services or CSS to which
the said DOPT guidelines apply. None of them is a Government employee.
Even the applicant is also not a gazetted officer as has been falsely claimed
by her, because respondent NIELIT is a registered society and an
autonomous body and not a Government Department. The employees of
respondent NIELIT do not possess gazetted status.
Satyanar
Digitally signed by Satyanarayana Vanapalli
DN: C=IN, O=GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, OU=
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
Phone=
6f592c8349948910e1de6c2931b0bac4a9bb73
4425eb6ffc8a5e181f034b2b77, PostalCode=
342006, S=RAJASTHAN, SERIALNUMBER=
053f205c047576d405aa21e40b02de09453dd2
ea8a478f74d402fb5b47c88e59, CN=
Satyanarayana Vanapalli
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.08.20 10:17:22+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
ayana
Vanapalli
9
iv) The present transfer of the applicant is ordered by the competent
authority in public interest and due to administrative exigencies and the
same is in accordance with the service rules applicable to the petitioner and
the transfer policy of respondent NIELIT. It is without any malafides,
arbitrariness and unreasonableness which is pleaded by the applicant
without supporting particulars. Moreover, no malafides or personal malice
were pleaded by the petitioner earlier either in her representation dated
25.03.2026 (A-4) nor in her previous O.A. No.418 of 2026. This is an
afterthought false allegation introduced to overcome maintainability and to
gain sympathy of this Tribunal. Any change in the impugned transfer order
pertaining to 13 employees may adversely impact the efficiency of
respondent's administration, besides creating an unhealthy precedent.
Moreover, transfer policy of respondent NIELIT is not under challenge in the
present O.A.
v) Further, the representation dated 25.03.2026 (A/4) preferred by the
applicant against her instant transfer order, has already been considered by
the competent authority and rejected with the following remarks:-
"The transfer order dated 24.03.2026 has been issued keeping in view
the organizational & operational requirements of the Organisation in
line with the extant transfer policy of NIELIT. The transfer policy states
that "considering the organizational requirements transfer is incidental
to the service of NIELIT and is not optional." Further, any change in
the transfers effected vide Office Order dated 24.03.2024 may have
impact on others also."
The applicant was informed accordingly within a week's time vide NIELIT
Ropar's letters dated 01.04.2026 (A/10) and dated 24.04.2026
(A/9). Thus, principles of natural justice have also been complied with.
vi) It has been submitted that in compliance of the instant transfer
order dated 24.03.2026 (A/3), the applicant has since been relieved
from her old place of posting vide order dated 30.03.2026, a copy of
which is annexed as Annexure R-2/2. Hence, her prayer for stay of
her instant transfer order is neither tenable nor appropriate.
Satyanar
Digitally signed by Satyanarayana Vanapalli
DN: C=IN, O=GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, OU=
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
Phone=
6f592c8349948910e1de6c2931b0bac4a9bb73
4425eb6ffc8a5e181f034b2b77, PostalCode=
342006, S=RAJASTHAN, SERIALNUMBER=
053f205c047576d405aa21e40b02de09453dd2
ea8a478f74d402fb5b47c88e59, CN=
Satyanarayana Vanapalli
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.08.20 10:17:22+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
ayana
Vanapalli
10
vii) The medical grounds advanced by the applicant based on private
medical prescriptions are of personal nature which do not create any legally
enforceable right to the applicant for cancellation of her instant transfer
orders and the same cannot prevent her transfer on permanent basis
treating the same as her incapability and incapacity for joining at the new
station of her posting.
viii) Further, it is submitted by the respondents that except the issuance of
transfer order dated 24.03.2026 (A/3) whereby the applicant has been
transferred from NIELIT Ropar Centre to NIELIT Ajmer Centre, rest of the
contents of this para are vehemently denied. It is specifically denied that the
DOPT guidelines regarding transfer in couple cases are applicable to the
petitioner. The judgments referred to in this para of O.A. are distinguished
and do not apply to the facts and circumstances of the matter of the
petitioner. It is also denied that the representation of the petitioner has been
rejected arbitrarily.
In execution of the transfer order dated 24.03.2026 (A/3), the applicant has
th
already been relieved from NIELIT Ropar on 30 March, 2026 vide office
order No.NIELIT/CH/Admn-22/2018/855 dated 30.03.2026 so as to enable
her to join and report at the new place of her posting i.e. NIELIT, Ajmer.
Hence, the applicant ceases to be the employee of NIELIT Ropar from
30.03.2026 onwards. Further, the applicant is not entitled to invoke the
jurisdiction of this Tribunal as none of her legal right has been infringed.
ix) The transfer of the petitioner is done in public interest keeping in view
the operational and administrative requirements of the organisation. The
date of transfer order is 24.03.2026 and it is neither 25.03.2026 nor
26.09.2025 as are wrongly mentioned in this para of O.A. The applicant has
no legal right to remain posted for ever at NIELIT Ropar since the post of the
applicant is transferable PAN India and her transfer is not only an incident
Satyanar
Digitally signed by Satyanarayana Vanapalli
DN: C=IN, O=GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, OU=
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
Phone=
6f592c8349948910e1de6c2931b0bac4a9bb73
4425eb6ffc8a5e181f034b2b77, PostalCode=
342006, S=RAJASTHAN, SERIALNUMBER=
053f205c047576d405aa21e40b02de09453dd2
ea8a478f74d402fb5b47c88e59, CN=
Satyanarayana Vanapalli
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.08.20 10:17:22+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
ayana
Vanapalli
11
but also a condition of her service. The transfer is in accordance with the
applicable service rules, motivated by the legitimate administrative and
public interest consideration and the same is neither malafide nor arbitrary
and as such the same does not deserve to be interfered with. The
representation of the applicant was duly considered by the competent
authority and rejected with the following remarks: -
"The transfer order dated 24.03.2026 has been issued keeping in view the
organizational & operational requirements of the Organisation in line with
the extant transfer policy of NIELIT. The transfer policy states that
"considering the organizational requirements transfer is incidental to the
service of NIELIT and is not optional. Further, any change in the transfers
effected vide Office Order dated 24.03.2024 may have impact on others
also."
The applicant has accordingly been informed vide NIELIT Ropar's letter
dated 01.04.2026 (A/10) and still further on 24.04.2026 (A/9). Admittedly
the petitioner is working in an autonomous body and not in a Govt. of India
Department. Her husband is also not working in PSU of the Central
Government or in Punjab Government. The petitioner is also not a gazetted
Group A officer as has been falsely claimed by her. The DOPT guidelines
regarding transfer in couple cases mentioned in the aforementioned paras of
OA are not applicable to the petitioner. The judgments mentioned in these
paras are also distinguishable and not relevant to the facts and
circumstances of this case. Transfer of the applicant is in accordance with
the Transfer policy of the respondent NIELIT which is not under challenge.
Contents of Paras 3 and 4 of Preliminary submissions above may also be
treated as part and parcel of the above said paras of OA. The same are not
repeated here for the sake of brevity.
x) The said OA No. 418 of 2026 filed by the petitioner has already been
dismissed as withdrawn and no liberty is granted by this Tribunal to file fresh
OA challenging the same transfer order again. Hence the present OA is not
maintainable. The order dated 24.04.2026 (P/9) is cryptic and non-
speaking. On the other hand, it is submitted that the order dated
Satyanar
Digitally signed by Satyanarayana Vanapalli
DN: C=IN, O=GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, OU=
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
Phone=
6f592c8349948910e1de6c2931b0bac4a9bb73
4425eb6ffc8a5e181f034b2b77, PostalCode=
342006, S=RAJASTHAN, SERIALNUMBER=
053f205c047576d405aa21e40b02de09453dd2
ea8a478f74d402fb5b47c88e59, CN=
Satyanarayana Vanapalli
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.08.20 10:17:22+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
ayana
Vanapalli
12
24.04.2026 (P/9) is a speaking order. The services of the petitioner are
required at NIELIT Ajmer Centre in public interest because the equivalent
status employee presently working there is going to superannuate on
31.05.2026. Therefore, the respondents prayed that the present OA be
dismissed with costs.
4. The applicant has filed rejoinder wherein the applicant reiterated the
contents of the O.A and emphasized on following submissions:
i) In O.A No.418 of 2026, the applicant has assailed the transfer order
dated 24.03.2026 and during the pendency of the aforesaid O.A the
respondents rejected the representation of the applicant vide letter dated
01.04.2026 and 24.04.2026 and keeping in view the fresh orders, the
applicant withdrew the O.A No.418 of 2026 with liberty to challenge the
rejection orders also. It is submitted that the rejection order passed by the
respondents pertains to transfer of the applicant and in case such rejection
order goes then automatically the basis of the transfer order also goes.
Moreover the transfer order merges into the rejection order. In addition to
this the O.A of the applicant was not decided on merit, therefore there is no
bar to challenge the transfer order. Once the liberty was granted to the
applicant to challenge the rejection orders etc. which pertains to transfer of
the applicant, therefore such objection on the part of the respondents has no
relevance. During the entire service the applicant remained posted at (i)
Chandigarh: from 1997-2019 and (ii) Ropar: from 2019-2026. The
respondent have adopted the policy of pick and choose in the present case
as the respondents have ignored number of longest stayees than the
applicant at their station, whereas the applicant has been discriminated.
Like: (1) Ms. Renu Wasan, Scientist E, (2) Ms. Meenu Mohindra, Scientist E,
(3) Neeru Vermani, Scientist D, (4) Sonia Bansal, Scientist E, (5) Anit
Budhiraja, Scientist E, (6) Anju Bartra, Senior Principal Private Secretary,
(7) Ms. Rashmi Aggarwal, Scientist D, (8) Mr. Rakesh Bharti, Scientist D, (9)
Satyanar
Digitally signed by Satyanarayana Vanapalli
DN: C=IN, O=GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, OU=
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
Phone=
6f592c8349948910e1de6c2931b0bac4a9bb73
4425eb6ffc8a5e181f034b2b77, PostalCode=
342006, S=RAJASTHAN, SERIALNUMBER=
053f205c047576d405aa21e40b02de09453dd2
ea8a478f74d402fb5b47c88e59, CN=
Satyanarayana Vanapalli
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.08.20 10:17:22+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
ayana
Vanapalli
13
Mr. Ritu kamal Aggarwal, Scientist D, (10) Mr. Raminder Singh, Scientist E,
(11) Mr. Sarwan Singh, Scientist D, (12) Sonia Rani, Scientist E, (13) Ms.
Renu Singla, Assistant Director Finance, (14) Satinder Kaur, DPE E, (15)
Anita Thakur, DPE E, (16) Renu Kapoor, DPE E. Number of Assistant Director
(Finance) in the entire cadre of the applicant have been ignored by the
respondents, whereas the applicant has been made scape-goat in the instant
case by transferring her to a distance of more than 700 Kms. The place
where the applicant has been posted is 80 Kms from Ajmer, which is a
remote area, where no basis enmities and proper medical facilities are not
available and moreover the applicant who were suffering from gynecological
problem. Further, no doubt one cannot claim posting at a particular station
as a matter of right but in the instant case keeping view the longest stayee,
medical problem, being a lady at further keeping in view the couple posting,
the respondents were required to consider the case of the applicant for
posting either at Chandigarh or nearby station like Kurukshetra etc.,
whereas while passing the impugned order, the respondents have failed to
consider the aforesaid aspect. Moreover from the perusal of the transfer
policy of the respondent it reveals that respondents have not mentioned any
maximum or minimum tenure for posting of the employees and same is
against the DOPT OM dated 02.07.2015 which mandates the Govt./Ministries
to mention the maximum and minimum tenure in the transfer policy thus, it
shows that the transfer policy issued by the respondents is not a transparent
policy and same is also not in consonance with the DOPT OM as well as
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T.S.R Subramanian .
Further impugned action on the part of the respondents in transferring the
applicant to a far flung place is arbitrary in view of the law laid by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SK Naushad (Supra), wherein the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that while framing the transfer
polices, the Govt./Union are required to mention about the spouse posting,
Compassionate ground/medical ground and disability ground, whereas in the
Satyanar
Digitally signed by Satyanarayana Vanapalli
DN: C=IN, O=GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, OU=
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
Phone=
6f592c8349948910e1de6c2931b0bac4a9bb73
4425eb6ffc8a5e181f034b2b77, PostalCode=
342006, S=RAJASTHAN, SERIALNUMBER=
053f205c047576d405aa21e40b02de09453dd2
ea8a478f74d402fb5b47c88e59, CN=
Satyanarayana Vanapalli
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.08.20 10:17:22+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
ayana
Vanapalli
14
instant case the respondents have failed to consider and ignored such
mandate of Hon'ble Supreme Court. The respondents in the rejection order
dated 24.04.2026 have mentioned that the transfer of the applicant has
been acted as per the transfer policy (A-6), whereas the respondents have
failed to consider and appreciate that once the transfer policy of the
respondents is not transparent, therefore the transfer orders issued in
pursuance to such transfer policy are void abnitio and are not sustainable in
the eyes of the law. The judgment relied upon by the respondents in this
para is not applicable in the instant case and same is distinguishable on
facts.
So far the contention of the respondents that the applicant has given
an undertaking regarding transfer in December, 2025 that she can be
transferred to anywhere in India, in this regard it is submitted that every
employee who joins service has to accept the conditions laid down in the
appointment letter or promotion letter and are these general undertaking.
Moreover from the perusal of the entire OA of the applicant it reveals that
the applicant has not disputed the aforesaid fact. The old age mother and
mother-in-law of the applicant are suffering from various old aged ailments
and the applicant is the only female care given to them and the applicant
who herself is also suffering from medical problem and she has social
responsibility towards her parents, whereas while passing the impugned
orders nothing was consider by the respondents. The applicant in her
representations also highlighted the aforesaid aspect but same was also not
considered by the respondents while passing the impugned rejection order.
ii) Further, it is averred by the applicant that once the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has laid down law in the case of the TSR Subramanian regarding
fixation of maximum and minimum tenure in the transfer policies, therefore
the respondents cannot take the stand that the DOPT OM is not applicable in
the instant case. Moreover the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of SK Nausad
(supra) held that while framing the transfer policies, the department are
Satyanar
Digitally signed by Satyanarayana Vanapalli
DN: C=IN, O=GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, OU=
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
Phone=
6f592c8349948910e1de6c2931b0bac4a9bb73
4425eb6ffc8a5e181f034b2b77, PostalCode=
342006, S=RAJASTHAN, SERIALNUMBER=
053f205c047576d405aa21e40b02de09453dd2
ea8a478f74d402fb5b47c88e59, CN=
Satyanarayana Vanapalli
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.08.20 10:17:22+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
ayana
Vanapalli
15
required to consider the spouse posting, compassionate/medical posting and
assumption from transfer/posting to disabled employees, therefore the
contentions of the respondents that they are not bound to follow the DOPT
OM has no relevance as once the law of land has already laid down certain
criterias for framing the transfer policies, therefore the objection taken by
the respondents in this para is unsustainable. No doubt the respondent
department is an autonomous body and they are following the pay
scales/condition of service of Central Govt. like pay scales, department
proceeding rules, pay commissions as per central pattern, therefore in case
of transfer/posting the respondents cannot take different stand.
iii) The transfer of the applicant is neither in public interest nor in any
administrative exigency, therefore the impugned order as well as rejection
order deserves to be set aside. So far the contentions of the respondents
the applicant has not alleged any mala fide against the respondents, in this
regard it is submitted that, the applicant has already made averments of
legal malice, therefore the impugned order is unsustainable. The
respondents have adopted the policy of pick and choose in the present case
as the respondents have ignored number of longest stayees than the
applicant at their station, whereas the applicant has been discriminated.
Number of Assistant Directors (Finance) in the entire cadre of the applicant
have been ignored by the respondents, whereas the applicant has been
made scapegoat in the instant case by transferring her to a distance of more
than 700Kms. The place where the applicant has been posted is 80Kms from
Ajmer, which is a remote area, where no basis enmities and proper medical
facilities are not available and moreover the applicant who were suffering
from gynecological problem. The impugned rejection order dated
01.04.2026, 24.04.2026 are non-speaking orders, therefore same deserves
to be set aside. The respondents in the rejection order dated 24.04.2026
have mentioned that the transfer of the applicant has been acted as per the
transfer policy (A/6), whereas the respondents have failed to consider and
Satyanar
Digitally signed by Satyanarayana Vanapalli
DN: C=IN, O=GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, OU=
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
Phone=
6f592c8349948910e1de6c2931b0bac4a9bb73
4425eb6ffc8a5e181f034b2b77, PostalCode=
342006, S=RAJASTHAN, SERIALNUMBER=
053f205c047576d405aa21e40b02de09453dd2
ea8a478f74d402fb5b47c88e59, CN=
Satyanarayana Vanapalli
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.08.20 10:17:22+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
ayana
Vanapalli
16
appreciate that once the transfer policy of the respondents is non-
transparent, therefore the transfer orders issued in pursuance to such
transfer policy are void abnitio and are not sustainable in the eyes of the
law.
iv) On 24.03.2026 the applicant was transferred from present place of
posting and in pursuance to such transfer the applicant submitted her
representation to the respondents on 25.03.2026 and without deciding the
same the respondents relived her on 30.03.2026, whereas the rejection
order was issued on 01.04.2026, therefore it shows the legal malice on the
part of the respondents towards the applicant. The respondents have not
disputed the medical of the applicant, however they have stated that the
medical ground of the applicant cannot create vested right for posting her at
present station in this regard it is submitted the right to life has been
considered as fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India
and at transferred place, neither there is basic enmities nor there is any
medical facilities, thus the right of the applicant has been infringed.
Therefore, the applicant prayed that the present OA be allowed in the
interest of justice.
5. Heard counsel for the applicant and counsel for the respondents and
have gone through the pleadings and averments made in this case.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has not disputed the following facts:-
i) The applicant has already joined at a new place of posting as per
Annexure A/3 which is being impugned in the present OA.
ii) This is the first transfer of the applicant and she remained at the
earlier place of posting for the last 29 years.
iii) She has been transferred to NIELIT Ajmer and an undertaking was
also given by her to state that: “am aware of the facts that as per the
Transfer Policy of National Institute of Electronics and Information
Technology, I may be transferred anywhere in the country for any
assignment as deemed fit by the Management”.
Satyanar
Digitally signed by Satyanarayana Vanapalli
DN: C=IN, O=GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, OU=
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
Phone=
6f592c8349948910e1de6c2931b0bac4a9bb73
4425eb6ffc8a5e181f034b2b77, PostalCode=
342006, S=RAJASTHAN, SERIALNUMBER=
053f205c047576d405aa21e40b02de09453dd2
ea8a478f74d402fb5b47c88e59, CN=
Satyanarayana Vanapalli
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.08.20 10:17:22+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
ayana
Vanapalli
17
iv) The concerned Society is a PAN India Organization and has officers
throughout the Country.
v) The points raised by the respondents are that in the interest of
organization, the applicant has been transferred from NIELIT Ropar to
NIELIT Ajmer after a continuous stay of 29 years at one station.
vi) Representation for staying at a place was also duly considered and
rejected.
In view of the requirements by the organization, the applicant has
been transferred from NIELIT Ropar to NIELIT Ajmer after staying at a same
place of posting after 29 years.
7. In view of the above arguments and the facts, there is no reason to
interfere in the order passed by the respondents by transferring the
applicant from NIELIT Ropar to NIELIT Ajmer. The counsel for the applicant
could not give any cogent reason of any discrimination or violation of
transfer policy or instructions. Further, the applicant has already been
relieved from NIELIT Ropar on 30.03.2026 vide order dated 30.03.2026.
8. In view of the aforementioned facts, the Tribunal finds no reason to
interfere with the order passed by the respondents and hence the OA filed in
this case being devoid of any merits and the same is hereby dismissed. No
order as to costs.
(ANJALI BHAWRA)
MEMBER (A)
/sv/
Satyanar
Digitally signed by Satyanarayana Vanapalli
DN: C=IN, O=GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, OU=
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
Phone=
6f592c8349948910e1de6c2931b0bac4a9bb73
4425eb6ffc8a5e181f034b2b77, PostalCode=
342006, S=RAJASTHAN, SERIALNUMBER=
053f205c047576d405aa21e40b02de09453dd2
ea8a478f74d402fb5b47c88e59, CN=
Satyanarayana Vanapalli
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.08.20 10:17:22+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.2.0
ayana
Vanapalli