Axay Kumar vs NORTHERN RAILWAY

1 OA No.2166/2026

Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi

OA No.2166/2026
MA No.2865/2026
MA No.3636/2026


Order reserved on: 20.08.2026
Order pronounced on: 03.09.2026


Hon’ble Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A)
Hon’ble Sh. Rajveer Singh Verma, Member (J)


Axay Kumar, aged 50 years,
S/o Sh. Harpal Singh,
Working as Train Manager (Mail Guard),
In Northern Railway, Delhi Division,
R/o H.No.32, Shaahmal Enclave, Phase-III,
Budhana Road, Baraut (UP).

....Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Yogesh Sharma)

Versus

1. Union of India, through the General Manager,
Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi.

2. The Divisional Railway Manager,
Northern Railway Delhi Division,
State Entry Road, New Delhi.

3. The Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer,
Delhi Division Northern Railway,
State Entry Road, New Delhi.

4. The Assistant Personnel Officer/Operating,
Northern Railway, Delhi Division,
DRM Office, State Entry Road, New Delhi.

... Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Virendra Singh)


SUNITA 2026.09.07
15:10:29+05'30'
DUTT

2 OA No.2166/2026

ORDER

By Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A)


The instant Original Application has been filed by the
applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals
Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:

“(i) That the Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased
to pass an order of quashing the impugned transfer order
dated 28.4.2026 (Annex.A/1) declaring to the effect that
the same is illegal, arbitrary and against the law and
consequently, pass an order directing the respondents to
continue the posting of the applicant at Delhi Station with
all the consequential benefits.

(ii) Any other relief which the Hon’ble Tribunal deem fit
and proper may also be granted to the applicant.”


2. Factual Matrix

2.1 The present applicant was initially appointed as Goods
Guard w.e.f. 07.07.2006. He was transferred to Delhi
Division on mutual basis in January, 2008. Subsequently,
the applicant was promoted as Senior Goods Guard (re-
designated as Train Manager) in May, 2022. The applicant
was further selected as Train Manager Counselor on selection
basis in the year 2024. Vide order dated 28.04.2026 the
applicant was transferred from Delhi to Jind on
administrative grounds. Vide order dated 29.05.2026 this
Tribunal directed the respondents not to effect the transfer
order dated 28.04.2026 till further orders. The respondents
SUNITA 2026.09.07
15:10:29+05'30'
DUTT

3 OA No.2166/2026

filed MA No.3636/2026 for vacation of ad interim order
passed on 29.05.2026.

3. Pursuant to the notices issued, the respondents entered
appearance and filed their short reply on 01.07.2026. The
applicant has also filed his rejoinder on 27.07.2026. The
learned counsel for the respondents states that counter
affidavit would suffice for all purposes regarding the present
OA as well as MA. Similarly, learned counsel for applicant
states that the rejoinder is filed by the applicant for the OA as
well as the MA. When the matter was taken up on
20.08.2026, both the parties agreed for final hearing of both
MA as well as OA.


4. Submissions by learned counsel for the applicant

4.1 Learned counsel for the applicant referring to the
pleadings in paragraphs-4.4 to 4.16 of the OA states that the
transfer order dated 28.04.2026 passed by the respondents is
punitive in nature. The applicant is an office bearer (All India
Guards Council). He made a complaint against some of the
staff and some ongoing illegal activities vide his
representation dated 13.02.2025 and 29.10.2025. The
respondents got annoyed due to the action of the applicant
being an office bearer and as he brought out some
irregularities and alleged illegal activities of notice of the
SUNITA 2026.09.07
15:10:29+05'30'
DUTT

4 OA No.2166/2026

respondents, he was transferred as a punitive measure from
Delhi to Jind.

4.2 Learned counsel for the applicant refers to the pleadings
in paragraph 4.10 of the OA and states that the wife of the
applicant is working as Shiksha Mitre in Primary Education
Department of U.P. Government and posted in Baghpat. As
per the Railway Board’s policy while transferring Railway
servants from one station to another the fact of an employee’s
spouse having been posted at a particular station should be
kept in view. Request for transfer to a station where a
Railway servant’s spouse is working should also be
considered sympathetically as far as possible.

4.3 Referring to the aforementioned policy of the Railway
Board, learned counsel for the applicant states that the fact
that the applicant’s spouse is working nearby Delhi, he
should not have been transferred to Jind, disturbing his
family life.

4.4 In addition to the aforementioned grounds, learned
counsel for the applicant also refers to the fact that the
applicant’s son is studying in Class-IX and the transfer
during mid-term session will affect his studies as per Clause-
9.2 of the Railway Board’s policy. In support of his argument,
learned counsel for the applicant states that the judgment of
SUNITA 2026.09.07
15:10:29+05'30'
DUTT

5 OA No.2166/2026

the Apex Court in Director of School Education, Madras &
Others v. O. Karuppa Thevan , 1994 (Supp.) SCC 266,
wherein it has been held as under:

“2. The tribunal has erred in law in holding that the
respondent employee ought to have been heard before
transfer. No law requires an employee to be heard before
his transfer when the authorities make the transfer for the
exigencies of administration. However, the learned counsel
for the respondent, contended that in view of the fact that
respondent's children are studying in school, the transfer
should not have been effected during mid-academic term.
Although there is no such rule, we are of the view that in
effecting transfer, the fact that the children of an employee
are studying should be given due weight, if the exigencies
of the service are not urgent. The learned counsel
appearing for the appellant was unable to point out that
there was such urgency in the present case that the
employee could not have been accommodated till the end
of the current academic year. We, therefore, while setting
aside the impugned order of the Tribunal, direct that the
appellant should not effect the transfer till the end of the
current academic year. The appeal is allowed accordingly
with no order as to costs.”

4.5 Learned counsel for the applicant also refers to
paragraph 4.12 of the OA, which states that the mother of the
applicant is 88 years old and is suffering from Cancer and
paralysis. Applicant is the sole care-giver for his mother and
because of transfer he will face difficulties in giving proper
care and treatment to his mother and family.

4.6 Learned counsel for the applicant further states that as
per the Master Circular of the Railway Board Office Bearers of
Unions/Associations are not supposed to be ordinarily
transfer from their present place of posting to another place.
Applicant has made detailed representations dated
SUNITA 2026.09.07
15:10:29+05'30'
DUTT

6 OA No.2166/2026

13.05.2026 and 25.05.2026 but the respondents have not
taken any appropriate decision on his representation.

5. Submissions by the learned counsel for the
respondents


5.1 Learned counsel for the respondents states that All India
Guards Council to which applicant claims to belong as an
Office Bearer (Treasurer) does not hold the status of a
recognized Trade Union under the applicable Railway Board’s
guidelines. As per the clarifications issued by the
respondents placed at Annexure R-1 where it has been clearly
mentioned that the present applicant is not an office bearer of
any recognized union. Hence, he cannot claim the benefit of
Railway Board’s circular exempting the office bearers of
recognized unions ordinarily are not to be transferred from
their present place of posting.

5.2 Learned counsel for the respondents further states that
the Courts and the Tribunal should not ordinarily interfere
with the administrative decisions effecting transfers unless
such orders are shown to be mala fide or in clear violation of
a specific statutory provision or mandatory policy. The
applicant has failed to establish either of those grounds. The
transfer is a routine administrative posting made in the
interest of the organization. Moreover, the applicant is in a
service which has All India transfer liability and transfer is an
SUNITA 2026.09.07
15:10:29+05'30'
DUTT

7 OA No.2166/2026

incident of service to which the applicant had joined. The
applicant himself sought voluntary repatriation to his parent
cadre of Train Manager/Guard vide his representation dated
20.03.2026 which was accepted by the respondents. The
applicant rejoined as Train Manager in his original cadre and
further his repatriation to the Train Manager cadre, he
became available for posting anywhere within the Division as
per the exigencies of service. The post at Jind is required to
be filled in the organizational interest of the Railways.
Accordingly, the applicant was posted to Jind.

5.3 As regards the averments by the learned counsel for the
applicant that the applicant’s wife is serving as Shiksha Mitre
in Primary Education Department of U.P. Government, the
Railway Board’s circular are in the form of guidelines for
sympathetic consideration. However, it does not confer an
absolute right upon the employee to be posted at a particular
place of posting. Similarly, the mid-term session
consideration cannot constitute a permanent right for non-
compliance of a lawful transfer.

6. Analysis

6.1 Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused
the records of the case.

SUNITA 2026.09.07
15:10:29+05'30'
DUTT

8 OA No.2166/2026

6.2 The Apex Court in Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar , 1991
(2) SCC (Supp.) 659, has held as under:

“4. In our opinion, the Courts should not interfere with a
transfer Order which are made in public interest and for
administrative reasons unless the transfer Orders are
made in violation of any mandatory statutory Rule or on
the ground of malafide. A Government servant holding a
transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at
one place or the other, he is liable to be transferred from
one place to the other. Transfer Orders issued by the
competent authority do not violate any of his legal rights.
Even if a transfer Order is passed in violation of executive
instructions or Orders, the Courts ordinarily should not
interfere with the Order instead affected party should
approach the higher authorities in the Department. If the
Courts continue to interfere with day-to-day transfer
Orders issued by the Government and its subordinate
authorities, there will be complete chaos in the
Administration which would not be conducive to public
interest. The High Court over looked these aspects in
interfering with the transfer Orders.”


6.3 Moreover, the Apex Court in Gujarat Electricity Board
v. Atma Ram Sungomal Poshani , 1989 SCC (L&S) 393, has
held as follows:
“Transfer of a Government servant appointed to a

particular cadre of transferable posts from one place
to the other is an incident of service. No Government
servant or employee of Public Undertaking has legal
tight for being posted at any particular place. Transfer
from one place to other is generally a condition of
service and the employee has no choice in the matter.
Transfer from one place to other is necessary in public
interest and efficiency in the Public administration.
Whenever, a public servant is transferred he must
comply with the order but if there be any genuine
difficulty in proceeding on transfer it is open to him to
make representation to the competent authority for
stay, modification or cancellation of the transfer
order. If the order of transfer is not stayed, modified
or cancelled the concerned public servant must carry
out the order of transfer. In the absence of any stay of
the transfer order a public servant has no justification
to avoid or evade the transfer order merely on the
ground of having made a representation, or on the
ground of his difficulty in moving from one place to
the other. If he fails to proceed on transfer in
compliance to the transfer order, he would expose
SUNITA 2026.09.07
15:10:29+05'30'
DUTT

9 OA No.2166/2026

himself to disciplinary action under the relevant
Rules, as has happened in the instant case. The
respondent lost his service as he refused to comply
with the order of his transfer from one place to the
other.”


6.4 In the instant case, the applicant has failed to
substantiate any mala fide or violation of statutory rules while
the respondents have evoked the transfer of the present
applicant from Delhi to Jind. The plea by the applicant is
that his wife is serving in a particular school as Shiksha Mitre
in Baghpat, UP, is not a significant ground as the applicant is
serving in Delhi and his family is alleged to be staying in
Baghpat. Hence, the plea that he will be separated from his
spouse, is not tenable. Accordingly, the plea of applicant that
he will not be able to take care of his ailing mother after his
transfer, is not substantiated.

6.5 As regards the mid-term transfer, applicant was
transferred in April, 2026 which is beginning of a particular
session and it is not the mid academic session as such.

6.6 It is a fact that applicant’s son is studying in class-IX
but that will not suffice that it is a mid academic session
transfer.

6.7 The respondents have categorically denied that the
applicant belongs to any recognized union of the Indian
Railways. Hence, his claim that the order of transfer is
SUNITA 2026.09.07
15:10:29+05'30'
DUTT

10 OA No.2166/2026

punitive, is also not tenable. It is a fact that applicant has
joined service which has All India transfer liability to
anywhere in the concerned Division and respondents have to
manage their manpower for their efficient utilization of such
manpower so as to achieve the organizational objective of
smooth functioning of the Division.

7. Conclusion

7.1 In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the OA
and hence the same is dismissed.

7.2 Resultantly, MA No.3636/2026 has become infructuous
and, therefore, no separate orders are required to be passed
thereon. It is accordingly dismissed.

8. No order as to costs.

9. Pending MAs, if any, shall also stand disposed of.



(Rajveer Singh Verma) (Dr. Chhabilendra Roul)
Member (J) Member (A)

‘SD’




SUNITA 2026.09.07
15:10:29+05'30'
DUTT