ANURAG YADAV vs CAG
- Court
- Central Administrative Tribunal
1
OA No. 337/2026
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
…
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 337/2026
Order reserved on: 03.08.2026
Date of order: 31.08.2026
CORAM:
HON’BLE MS. RANJANA SHAHI, MEMBER (J)
HON’BLE SHRI LOK RANJAN, MEMBER (A)
Anurag Yadav s/o J.P. Yadav, aged about 34 years, r/o A/25,
Chadra Vatika, Maharana Pratap Marg, Vaishali Nagar West, Jaipur-
302034. Presently working as Assistant Audit Officer (A.A.O.) at
Jaipur, Group-B
Email:[email protected], Mob no:- 7568809465
Sub:- Transfer
APPLICANT
(By Advocate: Shri B.K. Jatti)
Vs.
1. The Union of India, Through Director General of Audit
(Finance & Communication), Indian Audit & Accounts Department,
Sham Nath Marg, Civil Lines Delhi-110054.
2. The Director General of Audit (Central), Ahmedabad, Indian
Audit & Accounts Department, Branch Office Jaipur, Janpath, AG
Office, Near Statue Circle, Jaipur-302005.
3. The Deputy Director (Finance & Communication), Audit
Branch Office Jaipur, BSNL Building, Bajaj Nagar, Jaipur-302015.
4. The Principal Accountant General, Audit I,
LekhaPrakishaBhawan, 361, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai-
600018.
5. Staff Wing in the o/o Comptroller and Auditor General of
India, New Delhi-110124.
RESPONDENTS
(By Advocate: Shri Manu Bhargava)
YOGENDRA SINGH
MEENA
2
OA No. 337/2026
ORDER
Per : Hon’ble Shri Lok Ranjan, Member (A)
The present Original Application had been filed by the
Applicant,appointedas Assistant Audit Officer (A.A.O.) in the Indian
Audit and Accounts Department (I.A.&A.D.) vide Appointment Order
dated 07.05.2018, who had earlier been allowed a deputation vide
Order dated 01.07.2022 – from the Office of Respondent No.4, the
Principal Accountant General (P.A.G.) (Audit-I), Tamil Nadu (also
mentioned at times as Tamilnadu&Puducherry), Chennai (i.e. Parent
Office) ; to the Office of Respondent No.1, the Principal Director Audit
(P.D.A.)/Director-General Audit (D.G.A.), Finance & Communication
(F&C),Delhi (i.e.Borrowing Office), where he had joined initially on
04.07.2022.The Applicanthad been eventually working in the Office of
the D.G.A. (Central), Ahmedabad, Branch Office at Jaipur (i.e.
Respondent No.2) and was seeking the quashing and setting aside of
the Orders for his repatriation from deputation at the Borrowing
Officeto his Parent Office and to be held eligible to be posted in the
new Central Expenditure Audit (C.E.A.) cadre, as per his choice.
2. This is a third round of litigation on the matter. The first round
of litigationvide the O.A. No.046/2026,was with reference to the
Respondent No.4 Letter dated 21.11.2025, whereby the Borrower
Department had been asked to repatriate the Applicant from his
deputation ; and the Respondent No.1 Letter dated 03.12.2025 issued
to Respondent No.3 in follow-up for relieving the Applicant from the
(F&C) Branch Office Jaipur with instructions to report to his Parent
Office (Respondent No.4) – which had both been impugned. The
Applicant had inter alia stated that the RespondentDepartment had
passed an order for creation of new centralised cadre of Central
Expenditure Audit (C.E.A.)/Central Revenue Audit (C.R.A.); and
although pending till such time, the Applicant was likely to be
considered for posting shortly in accordance with the choices
indicated by him for the new C.E.A. cadre. Thereupon, this Tribunal
had passed the interim Order dated 17.02.2026, inter alia as follows :
“… … 4. We direct Respondent No.1, Director General of Audit to
appraise the Court, through Shri Manu Bhargava, learned Senior
YOGENDRA SINGH
MEENA
3
OA No. 337/2026
Standing counsel for Central Government of the tentative period by
which fresh posting orders will be issued in light of the creation of the
new centralized cadre.
th
5. List the matter on 27 February, 2026.
6. However, it is made clear that till then, no coercive action shall be
taken pursuant to the impugned order dated 21.11.2025.”
Subsequently, on the next date, after hearing the rival contentions,
the said O.A. had been disposed of by this Tribunal vide the Order
dated 27.02.2026, inter alia as follows:
“Shri Vinod Goyal, learned counsel for the Applicant on instructions
states that in case the Respondents do not post him as per the choice
st
given by him by 31 March, 2026 then he shall join at Chennai in
pursuance to the impugned order dated 21.11.2025 and in that
eventuality Respondents shall allow the Applicant to join at Jaipur till
31.03.2026.
In light of the above, the operation of the impugned order dated
21.11.2025 shall be kept in abeyance till 31.03.2026.”
Accordingly later after the aforesaid period had elapsed without the
orders for posting of the Applicant as per his choices for the C.E.A.
cadre, the Respondent No.1 had again directed vide letter dated
01.04.2026 for relieving the Applicant from his posting on deputation
at Jaipur for his Parent Office; and in pursuance,the follow-up
Order,also dated 01.04.2026,had been issued by the Respondent
No.3, the Finance & Communications Audit Office at Jaipur, to relieve
the Applicant accordingly with instructions to join in his Parent Office.
The Applicant had presented an M.A. No.173/2026 for clarification of
the order dated 27.02.2026 of this Tribunal in O.A. No.046/2026, but
the same had been disposed of vide Order dated 10.04.2026, holding
that the Applicant had raised a fresh cause of action thereby, so the
said M.A. would not survive in the previous O.A. No.046/2026 with a
separate cause of action.
3. As the second round of litigation, the Applicant had filed the
O.A. No.195/2026 and had sought mainly two substantive reliefs –
firstly, that the impugned transfer/repatriationOrder dated
21.11.2025 issued by the Respondent No.4 and the impugned
relieving order dated 01.04.2026 issued by the Respondent No.3 be
quashed and the Applicant be allowed to continue at Jaipur as his
cadre had been changed to the new C.E.A. cadre and his name
YOGENDRA SINGH
MEENA
4
OA No. 337/2026
figured in the Seniority List dated 20.03.2026 for the same and he
was likely to get deployed to one of his choice stations ; and
secondly, that his withheld salary from the month of December, 2025
be released. The same had been disposed of by this Tribunal vide
Order dated 27.02.2026, inter alia as follows :
“As to the first relief, since in the previous O.A. this Tribunal had protected
him till 31.03.2026 on his assurance that in case the Respondents do not
redeploy him in view of the restructuring then he would join at Chennai in
pursuance to the impugned transfer order dated 21.11.2025, we are not
inclined to interfere with the impugned transfer order as well as the
consequential relieving order dated 01.04.2026. However, this shall not
come in the way of the Respondents in considering his case for
redeployment in view of restructuring of cadre in pursuance to the final
seniority list dated 20.03.2026. It is also noted that the Applicant has
already filed a representation dated 02.04.2026 (Annexure-A/22), we direct
the Respondents to duly consider the same.
Coming to the second relief sought by him, Mr. Kamal Sharma, Sr. Audit
Officer (Admin.) O/o D.G.A. (F&C) Delhi F&C Audit Office Jaipur Branch,
present in the court has stated that some adjustments are being carried out
and accordingly the outstanding salary of the Applicant is being processed
for which the required approvals have been sought and he states that the
same shall be released within four weeks.
In light of the assurance given by Mr. Kamal Sharma, Sr. Audit Officer
(Admin.) O/o D.G.A. (F&C) Delhi F&C Audit Office Jaipur Branch, we are
disposing of the present O.A. with directions to the Respondents that they
shall release the due salary of the Applicant forthwith and in any case not
later than four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this
order. No costs.”
Thereby, at the closure of the second round of litigation as aforesaid,
it had inter alia emergedthat this Tribunal was not inclined to interfere
with the transfer/repatriationOrder dated 21.11.2025 issued by
Respondent No.4 and the relieving order dated 01.04.2026 issued by
Respondent No.3 ; while the same shall not come in the way of
Respondents considering Applicant’s case for redeployment in view of
restructuring of centralized .C..E.A. cadre in pursuance to the final
seniority list dated 20.03.2026forupdation of transfer/posting
data,duly considering his representation dated 02.04.2026.
4. Based on the pleadings of the parties and the related previous
litigations as above, the relevant matrix of facts had emerged as
follows, briefly. The Applicant had initially been appointed as A.A.O. in
the I.A.&A.D. Department on 07.05.2018 and had joined under the
P.A.G.(Audit-I), Tamil Nadu i.e. Respondent No.4 as his Parent Office.
Subsequently, at his request, the Applicant had been allowed
YOGENDRA SINGH
MEENA
5
OA No. 337/2026
deputation, not in public interest, vide Order dated 01.07.2022 under
Respondent No.1, the D.G.A.(F&C), Delhi i.e. Borrowing Office, with
one year as the initial period of deputation. Later, the deputation
period of the Applicant had been extended up to 03.07.2025 through
two extensions of one year each ; and the Applicanthad also came to
be posted at the Office of Respondent No.3 and at the Office of
Respondent No.2 – both at Jaipur.
In connection with further extension of the Applicant’s deputation,
vide the impugned Letter dated 21.11.2025 of the Office of
Respondent No.4, i.e. his Parent Office,it had been conveyed to the
Office of Respondent No.1, i.e. the Borrowing Office, that the proposal
for further extension of deputation had not been acceded to by the
competent authority ;and that the Applicant be repatriated on or
before 19.12.2025. Respondent No.1 had in turn directed Respondent
No.3 vide the impugned Letter dated 03.12.2025 to withdraw the
Applicant from his assignment then ;and relieve him of his duties with
instructions to report to the Office of Respondent No.4.
5. Relevantly meanwhile, vide the Circular No.43/2025 dated
21.11.2025, the Respondent No.5 i.e. the Staff Wing of the Office of
the Comptroller & Auditor General (C.&A.G.) of India, had separately
conveyed the approval to creation of two new C.E.A. and C.R.A.
cadres at the level of Senior Audit Officers (S.A.O.s) and Assistant
Audit Officers (A.A.O.s), in the interest of consolidating fragmented
cadre structures and establishing domain-based specialization. It had
been notified thereby inter alia – that the C.E.A. and C.R.A. cadres
will draw sanctioned strength from existing audit offices ; that the
aforementioned cadres shall come into effect from 01.01.2026 ; and
that further details including the course of action to be taken,
modalities and roll out plan shall be issued by the Staff Wing in due
course of time., it had been inter alia circulated – that a one-time
option for one of Existing State Cadre, C.E.A. or C.R.A.shall be sought
from all existing Sr.A.A.O.s and A.A.O.s of contributing C.C.A.s in the
manner detailed therein, for which the option window was opened till
05.12.2025 (11:59 PM) ; that the employees of C.E.A. and C.R.A.
cadres shall have all India Transfer Liability ; and that such transfers
YOGENDRA SINGH
MEENA
6
OA No. 337/2026
shall be made in terms of Transfer & Posting Policy, which shall be
issued shortly in continuation.
Subsequently, vide the Circular No.03/2026 dated 20.01.2026 of
Respondent No.5, the Transfer Policy for centralized cadres [Transfer
Policy-(20.01.2026)]came to be circulated, inter alia providing – that
the general principles of transfer and posting were that A.A.O.s and
SAOs borne on C.E.A. Cadre of I.A.&A.D. shall have an all-India
transfer liability to be posted anywhere in India ; that while
preferences will be considered to the extent possible, postings
shall be guided by administrative requirements and vacancy
position and mere availability of vacancies at a particular
station would not automatically confer a right to be posted
there ; that the transfer and posting of officers of C.E.A. cadre shall
be recommended by duly constituted Transfer & Posting Board
(T.&P.B.) and the D.A.I.(HR) shall be the accepting authority for
suchrecommendations ; that every A.A.O. and S.A.O. shall be
assigned a Base Station as per self-declaration which shall be the
station where he/she will generally be posted during his/her career ;
that upon repatriation from deputation/foreign service, an officer shall
be posted at a station other than the station from which he/she went
on deputation and his/her base station, but may apply for transfer to
the base station/choice station, subject to availability of vacancy ;
and that the said policy shall take effect from the date notified for
operationalization of C.E.A. cadre.
The Transfer Policy-(20.01.2026) had also reopened the Option Form
from 20.01.2026-27.01.2026. The Applicant had submitted his Option
Form dated 21.01.2026, therebyopting to be included in the C.E.A.
cadre, as well as indicating his self-declared Base Station (Jaipur) and
five Choice Stations (Delhi, Noida, Ahmedabad, Gwalior, Chandigarh)
in order of priority. It was also affirmed by him that he was
completely conversant with the transfer policy, service conditions and
all other terms and conditions associated with opting for the
centralized cadre; and that he accepted the same without any
reservation.
YOGENDRA SINGH
MEENA
7
OA No. 337/2026
6. While the Applicant’s Option Form submitted as such was
pending consideration, the Applicant had entered into the first round
of litigation vide O.A. No.046/2026 as included at Para-2 herein
before, culminating in this Tribunal’s Order dated 27.02.2026,
relevantly inter alia for keeping the operation of the impugned
transfer/repatriation order dated 21.11.2025 in abeyance till
31.03.2026, in light of the statement on instruction by the learned
Counsel for the Applicant that in case the Respondents do not post
st
him by 31 March-2026 under the new C.E.A. cadre as per the choice
given by him, then he shall join at Chennai in pursuance to thesaid
impugned Order dated 21.11.2025 issued by Respondent No.4.
7. Eventually, it transpired that the transfer and posting orders for
optees to the C.E.A. cadre, inter alia the Applicant herein, did not
st
come to be issued by 31 March-2026. The Respondent No.1 had
then directed relieving of the Applicant for his Parent Office vide the
impugned letter dated 01.04.2026, in pursuance to which another
follow-up order also dated 01.04.2026 had been issued by the
Respondent No.3, to relieve the Applicant accordingly with
instructions to join in his Parent Office. The Applicant had submitted a
representation via e-mail dated 02.04.2026, addressed to the
Respondents (No.1, 3, and 4) inter alia requesting for revocation of
Orders dated 01.04.2026 for his repatriation. Also as included in Para-
3 herein above, vide the O.A. No.195/2026, he had entered into the
second round of litigation, seeking thereby mainly two substantive
reliefs – firstly that the impugned relieving order dated 01.04.2026 of
the Respondent No.3 be quashed and the Applicant be allowed to
continue at Jaipur as his cadre had been changed to the new
C.E.A./C.R.A. cadre and his name had figured in the Seniority List
dated 20.03.2026 for the same and he was likely to get deployed to
one of his choice stations ; and secondly, that his withheld salary
from the month of December-2025 be released. The same had come
to be decided vide the Order dated 17.04.2026 of this Tribunal – in
effect observing thereby that we were not inclined to interfere with
the impugned transfer order as well as the consequential relieving
order dated 01.04.2026 ; however, that shall not come in the way of
YOGENDRA SINGH
MEENA
8
OA No. 337/2026
the Respondents considering his case for redeployment in view of
restructuring of C.E.A. cadre in pursuance to its final seniority list
dated 20.03.2026 regarding updation of transfer and posting data ;
and further directions to the Respondents to duly consider the
Applicant’s representation already filed on 02.04.2026.
In compliance thereof, the Respondent No.4 had eventually issued the
Memo dated 07.05.2026 ; and had reiterated that the representation
dated 02.04.2026 had already been considered and rejected by the
Competent Authority. It had further been averred inter alia – that the
Applicant’s claim, that he stood transferred to the C.E.A. cadre by the
Office of the Comptroller &Auditor General (C.&A.G.) of India
consequent to circulation of the gradation list of the C.E.A. Cadre
where the Applicant’sname had appeared at Sl.No.298, was not
correct ; and that until the Officer was relieved from the Office of the
Respondent No.4, his Parent Office would remain the same. Hence,
the Applicant’s repatriation Order, completely based on Headquarters
new deputation policy dated 27.01.2025, was reiterated.
8. Aggrieved by the foregoing, the Applicant had filed the present
O.A. No.337/2026 on 11.05.2026, as a third round of litigation in the
matter seeking the substantive reliefs inter alia, that the impugned
Orders – that dated 21.11.2025 (issued by Respondent No.4), that
dated 03.12.2025 (issued by Respondent No.1), that dated
01.04.2026 [issued by Respondent No.(1, 3)]and that dated
07.05.2026 (issued by Respondent No.4) be quashed and set aside ;
that the Respondents be directed to allow the Applicant to hold his
present post at Jaipur since his cadre had been changed and the
Office of the C.&A.G. of India had directed to maintain status quo ;
that consequently the Applicant be held eligible to be posted in the
new C.E.A. cadre as per his choice ; and also the repatriation of the
Applicant from Jaipur to Chennai be declared as illegal, arbitrary and
contrary to the Orders/Circulars/Transfer Policy of the Respondents.
Thereupon, vide the interim Order dated 14.05.2026, this Tribunal
had inter alia directed the Respondent No.5 to file an affidavit
explaining as to why the Respondents were not considering and
YOGENDRA SINGH
MEENA
9
OA No. 337/2026
accepting the self-declaration form submitted by the Applicant in
pursuance of Clause-3 in the Transfer Policy-(20.01.2026) for
centralized C.E.A. cadre and reopening of Option Form and Clause-3
of Annexure-1 thereof ; and had further taken note of the submission
of learned Sr. C.G.S.C. that in the meantime no coercive action shall
be taken against the Applicant till the next date of hearing.
Accordingly, vide the M.A. No.243/2026 in the present O.A. filed
along with a short affidavit on 25.05.2026, the Respondents had inter
alia submitted – that the I.A.&A.D. had received Option Forms from
more than 1300 A.A.O.s, also including the Applicant, giving their
options for C.E.A. cadre ; and further that the said forms were invited
only for the purposeof administrative assessment and future cadre
management. Hence, mere submission of such self-declared Option
Form under Clause-3 of the Transfer Policy-(20.01.2026) did not
confer any vested or enforceable right upon any employee to seek
retention/posting at any particular station. Further, it had also been
mentioned that the C.E.A. cadre had remained to be fully
operationalizedtill then by the Department ; and the Applicant was
placed similarly in this regard to all other A.A.O.s who had submitted
their Option Form for the C.E.A. cadre – thus no prejudice had been
caused to him, inter alia by repatriating him to his parent Chennai
Cadre at therequest of the Parent Officein view of the acute shortage
there. It was also reiterated thereby that no final decision regarding
cadre allocation, base station allocation, choice station
allocation/posting under the proposed C.E.A./C.R.A. framework had
been implemented till then by the Department and the case of the
Applicant for inclusion in the C.E.A. cadre and consequential posting
etc. would be duly considered in accordance with the extant
guidelines - hence, he cannot claim any accrued right, merely based
on an option exercised under the proposed policy framework.
9. Thereafter, in respect of the aforesaid short affidavit filed on
behalf of Respondent No.5 vide M.A. No.243/2026, the Applicant had
filed the Reply dated 01.07.2026 ; and thereby claimed that in light
inter alia of the – operationalization of the C.E.A. cadre w.e.f.
01.01.2026, the filling-up of his Option Form on 21.01.2026, the
YOGENDRA SINGH
MEENA
10
OA No. 337/2026
publication of the Seniority List for updation of transfer and posting
data for C.E.A. on 20.03.2026 etc. – the Applicant had to be deemed
as having been transferred and deputed to CEA already meanwhile.
Further, the Applicant had referred to the Circular No.31 dated
16.06.2026 issued since by the Respondent No.5 that had included
the names of 328 Sr.Audit Officers/Sr.Administrative Officers
(S.A.O.s) as well as Assistant Audit Officers (A.A.O.s), although the
name of the Applicant had not figured therein. It was contended that
as per the provision of para 2.4 of the said Circular No.31 dated
16.06.2026, the employees borne on C.E.A. cadre, who do not figure
in the said Transfer and Posting Orders, shall be treated as retained in
their present office of posting on ‘as-is-where-is’ basis until further
orders ; and it was further contended that according to that, the
Applicant had to be posted in Jaipur.
In respect of the aforesaid Reply dated 01.07.2026 to the short
affidavit filed vide M.A. No.243/2026, the Respondent No.5 had filed
the Rejoinder dated 13.07.2026 ; and iterated inter alia – that the
C.E.A. cadre had been deemed operational with effect from
01.01.2026 for administrative purposes relating to cadre
management, establishment matters, deployment, manpower
planning etc., but did not mandate that transfer andposting should be
determined based on place of posting as on 01.01.2026 ; that the
seeking of options for base station and choice stations and its
forwarding by concerned offices with local approval was only to
facilitate appropriate consideration and did not by itself confer any
vested right regarding posting/transfer only as per the preferences
indicated by each such employee or that was to be determined solely
on the basis of the place of posting as on 01.01.2026 ; that inclusion
of the Applicant’s name in the C.E.A. seniority list signifies cadre
allocation and not determination of the place of transfer/posting
which were undertaken separately by the duly constituted T.&P.B.
after considering employee preferences subject to exigencies and
organizational requirements ; that the Applicant was repatriated to
his Parent Office vide Order dated 01.04.2026 of Respondent No.3,
prior to the convening of the first meeting of T.&P.B. in May-2026, the
YOGENDRA SINGH
MEENA
11
OA No. 337/2026
same had been taken into consideration and since he had not
completed the prescribed minimum tenure of three years at his
Parent Office/station as on the relevant date, accordingly in terms of
Para-2.4 of the Circular No. dated 16.06.2026, he had been posted at
his Parent Office on ‘as-is-where-is’ basis.
Further, in respect of the aforesaid rejoinder to M.A. No.243/2026
dated 13.07.2026 filed by Respondent No.5, the Applicant had filed
the counter-Reply dated 15.07.2026 ; seeking to reiterate that in light
inter alia of the – operationalization of the C.E.A. cadre w.e.f.
01.01.2026, the filling-up of his Option Form in December-2025 and
then on 21.01.2026, the publication of the Transfer Policy-
(20.01.2026) etc. – the Applicant had to be deemed as having been
transferred and deputed to C.E.A. already meanwhile and cannot be
repatriated to his erstwhile Parent Office under Respondent No.4 at
Chennai, but had to be posted at Jaipur on ‘as-is-where-is’ basis.
10. We had perused the documents presented on record by the
parties and also heard to the related arguments. At the outset, it had
also been noted that the related litigations had traversed two rounds
of deputations/transfers/postings of the Applicant, which would
necessarily be covered by the respectively extant Rules/guidelines
and terms as incorporated in executive Orders respectively. Firstly,
the Applicant had been allowed to proceed on a deputation within the
I.A.&A.D. from his Parent Office to the Borrowing Office vide Order
dated 01.07.2022 of the Office of Respondent No.4 ; the said
deputation had not been extended beyond 03.07.2025 – but the
Applicant had as yet not rejoined back at his aforesaid Parent Office
thereafter, but had been contesting that inter alia vide the previous
litigations. Secondly, approval for creation/constitution of new
centralized cadres (C.E.A. and C.R.A.) came to be circulated vide
Circular No.43 dated 21.11.2025 ; and
relatedimplementation/operationalization steps had been taken up in
follow-up vide various Circulars detailed herein before – and the
Applicant’s claim for another deputation/posting to the C.E.A. cadre
was under contest vide the present O.A.
YOGENDRA SINGH
MEENA
12
OA No. 337/2026
It was also noted that several varying or overlapping contentions had
thus been made through the pleadings and arguments of the
contesting parties in the present O.A. in relation to the
contentions/submissions made in those previous O.A.s (No.046/2026
and No.135/2026) as well. Nonetheless, the crux of the present
dispute had emerged to be whether the Applicant was required to be
repatriated to his Parent Office from his first deputation ; and whether
irrespective of the status in respect of the same, the Applicant would
be deemed to be deputed/absorbed into the C.E.A. cadre w.e.f.
01.01.2026 and was entitled to be posted thereafter in Jaipur as per
his declared/preferred Base Station.
Further, the specific issues that were required to be adjudicated vide
the present O.A. were relevantly found to be inter alia –
firstly,whether due to issuance of the Circular No.43 dated
21.11.2025 or the Circular No.15 dated 20.03.2026, the Applicant
automatically stood deputed to the new cadre of C.E.A. ;
secondly,whether his options for Base station and preferred posting
locations submitted on 21.01.2026 had created a vested right for the
Applicant to be necessarily posted by the Respondents in the new
C.E.A. cadre, specially in light of the options of certain other officials
having been considered while issuing the transfer and posting Order
vide Circular No.31dated 16.06.2026 ; and thirdly, that since the said
Orderdated 16.06.2026 had prescribed that the officials, who had not
been ordered to be transferred to new locations/offices thereby shall
continue to be posted on as-is-where-is basis, the Applicant had to be
continued to be posted at Jaipur.
11. To facilitate the understanding of the judicial context for
resolution of this involved dispute, we deem it apposite to underline
the remit of the various related Ordersof this Tribunal,at this stage
itself, inter alia as follows –
Firstly, vide Order dated 27.02.2026 in OA No.046/2026 – based on
the undertaking given by the Applicant that in case the
Respondents do not post him by 31.03.2026 in the restructured
C.E.A. Cadre as per the choice given by him then he shall join at
YOGENDRA SINGH
MEENA
13
OA No. 337/2026
Chennai in pursuance to the impugned Transfer/Repatriation Order
dated 21.11.2025 – it had been directed for the impugned
Transfer/Repatriation Order dated 21.11.2025 and the
consequential Order dated 03.12.2025 directing for him to be
relieved to be kept in abeyance up to 31.03.2026 only.
Secondly, vide the Order dated 17.04.2026 in OA No.135/2026 –
we were not inclined to interfere with the impugned
Transfer/Repatriation Order dated 21.11.2025 of Respondent No.4
as well as the consequential Orders dated 01.04.2026 of
Respondent No.(1 ,3) related to his relieving. However, the Circular
dated 20.03.2026 incorporating the Seniority List of the optees for
new C.E.A. cadre for updation of transfer and posting data and the
filing of the representation dated 02.04.2026 by him in respect of
the Relieving Order dated 01.04.2026 had been noted ; and it was
observed inter alia – that our Order as such shall not come in the
way of the Respondents considering his case for redeployment in
the restructured C.E.A. cadre in pursuance to the final seniority list
dated 20.03.2026 for updation of transfer and posting data ; and
further that the Respondents duly consider the Applicant’s
representation already filed on 02.04.2026. Nonetheless, the
impugned Transfer/Repatriation Order dated 21.11.2025 of
Respondent No.4 as well as the consequential Orders dated
01.04.2026 of Respondent No.(1,3) related to his relieving had not
been interfered with.
Thirdly, vide the interim Order dated 14.05.2026 in the present OA
No.377/2026 – the Respondent No.5 was directed to file an
affidavit explaining as to why the Respondents were not considering
and accepting the self-declaration form submitted by the Applicant
in pursuance of Clause-3 in the Transfer Policy-(20.01.2026) for the
C.E.A. cadre – while noting the submission of the learned Sr.
C.G.S.C. that no coercive action shall be taken against the
Applicant till the next date of hearing , which had come to be
scheduled for 27.05.2026.
YOGENDRA SINGH
MEENA
14
OA No. 337/2026
12. In regard to the aspect of ‘ no coercive action’ , we observe
that the said phrase cannot be assigned a fixed or universal meaning
and should not be mechanically construed as a blanket prohibition ;
but must be read in the limited context in which it was used. Thus, its
meaning would be derived from the surrounding circumstances, the
relief sought, and what was intended to be protected at the relevant
stage. It is clarified that the protections to the Applicant resultant
from the aforesaid Orders of this Tribunal in the present service
transfer matter, was intended only to legally restrain the Respondents
from executing harsh or forceful enforcement measures – such as
withholding salary or forced physical eviction from office or from
allotted official quarters if any, etc. – while the legality of his
Transfer/Repatriation was sub-judice or his connected representation
was pending consideration. Such protections were limited in remit
only in respect of the Transfer/Repatriation Order dated 21.11.2025
of the office of Respondent No.4 (i.e. his Parent Office), the Letter
dated 03.12.2025 of Respondent No.1 directing for his relieving from
the Borrowing Office and the later Order dated 01.04.2026 of the
Respondent No.3with instructions to join in his Parent Office of
Respondent No.4 at Chennai. Clearly, such Order of ‘ no coercive
action’ against the Applicant was not intended to be a final decision
but an interim one only and itsinterim/temporary protections that
were intended to last only until the next date of hearing.
Thus, it had emerged that any Orders by the Tribunal, such as an
interim direction for ‘no coercive action’ vide the interim Order
17.02.2026 or otherwise vide Order dated 27.02.2026, did not
automatically act as a complete stay or annulling of the administrative
transfer/repatriation Order dated 21.11.2025 issued by the
Respondent No.4, which had not been explicitly ordered as such by
us. In fact, vide the Order dated 17.04.2026, it had been explicitly
indicated that we were not inclined to interfere with the impugned
Transfer/Repatriation Order dated 21.11.2025 issued by the
Respondent No.4 or with the later Orders dated 01.04.2026 of the
Respondent No.(1,3) for Applicant’s relieving. In any case, those
protections would stand dissolved with the Transfer/Posting Orders
having been issued on 16.06.2026 and consequential filing of the
YOGENDRA SINGH
MEENA
15
OA No. 337/2026
related rejoinder affidavit filed on 13.07.2026 to M.A. No.243/2026 in
the present O.A. by the Respondents ; and the disposal of his pending
representation vide the impugned Memo dated 07.05.2026.
13. The learned Sr.C.G.S.C. had also submitted that the Applicant’s
salary that was previously withheld had been released; and he had
not faced any further forceful action. Nonetheless, he had applied for
Composite Transfer Grant (C.T.G.) vide e-mail dated 27.03.2026,
which had been sanctioned/provided to the extent of admissible
amount of Rs.2,52,000/- in his account on 17.04.2026 to enable him
to join in his Parent Office, viz Office of Respondent No.4 – but the
same had remained unutilized/unadjusted by him since. Further, he
had also prayed vide his e-mail dated 02.04.2026 to be allowed
joining time further from 02.04.2026 to 13.04.2026. It had already
been conveyed to him, inter alia vide the impugned Order dated
07.05.2026 – regarding his ineligibility for further joining time and
non-sanction of leave by his competent authority ; that as per the
extant D.oP.&T. O.M. dated 22.06.2010, the period of the Applicant’s
absence not covered by grant of leave shall have to be treated as
dies-non for all purposes, viz. increment, leave and pension ; that the
continuous unauthorized absence of the Applicant was liable to be
treated as willful absence from duty and misconduct under the extant
C.C.S.(C.C.A.) Rules-1965.
In light of the foregoing, it would be apposite to further observe that
theorder of ‘no coercive action’ against the Applicant cannot be
deemed as a blanket exoneration/stay on any other service liability
that would legally result from or accrue due to any actions of the
Applicant. Moreover, the powers for any other legal actions as per the
extant rules/guidelines, those pertaining to the drawal/non-
utilization/non-adjustment of C.T.G. advance by the Applicant as one
such matter cited before us, would also not be ousted ; nor would the
Applicant be automatically protected from the requirements of
compliance with those extant rules/guidelines.
14. Before proceeding with the examination of the matter any
further, it is also apposite to underline that transfer is an ordinary
YOGENDRA SINGH
MEENA
16
OA No. 337/2026
incident of service ; and no employee can claim any vested right to be
posted at a preferred location or to remain at a single location. It is
the prerogative of the competent administrative authorities to decide
upon the requirements of their organization, which had to be
accorded primacy ; and the decision to post its officers in the manner
deemed best for the organization was totally in their purview.It also
was a settled position that a government employee must first join
at the new place of posting before challenging a transfer order
; and a Court/Tribunal can interfere with administrative transfersonly
if clear mala fides, or violation of statutory rules, or demonstrable
arbitrariness.
In the present case before us, that the employees of the organization,
inter alia the Applicant, had been allowed to submit their choices for a
base station and a preferred place of posting, would in no way create
a right for the employee to be posted only accordingly. It is entirely
conceivable that the choices submitted by the employees could be
biased towards certain preferred stations of posting ; and that could
result in excess employees opting for certain preferred stations and
very few employees opting for certain non-preferred stations. An
unconsidered and blanket accommodation of the same could not be
possible in the interest of the organizational requirements, inter alia
the work load and availability of number of posts at each station,
which had to be accorded primacy and duly factored in. Further, upon
perusal of the posting order dated 16.06.2026 for the employees of
C.E.A. cadre, such exercise had been undertaken by the competent
authority as recommended by the T.&P.B. constituted for the purpose.
Consequently, it would emerge that the underlying administrative
right of the Respondents to re-examine or properly decide the
transfer representation in accordance with the law/guidelines and
administrative necessity had in no way been invalidated or ousted
thereby. Further, no patent illegality or mala fides or arbitrariness in
issuing the relevant Transfer Orders had been established in any way
before us vide the present O.A.
YOGENDRA SINGH
MEENA
17
OA No. 337/2026
15. Regarding the Applicant’s claim that he had to be necessarily
allowed further extensions in his deputation at the Borrowing Office
beyond 03.07.2025 also, statedly based upon the provisions of the
policy for deputation of employees within I.A.&A.D. that allowed for
the durations of such deputations to be without any limit – the
Respondents had referred to the latest Policy dated 27.01.2025 for
deputation of staff within I.A.&A.D. The learned Sr.C.G.S.C. had
drawn attention to the context for the said Policy recorded therein –
specifically that the previous existing guidelines with no limit on the
tenure of deputation of officers within I.A.&A.D. had led to skewed
distribution at the field and had yielded limited utility, so it was
reviewed by the Competent Authority and the revised guidelines
dated 27.01.2025 had been issued in supersession of the previous
policy (dated 09.11.2023). The revised guidelines came into force
with immediate effect (i.e. 27.01.2025) and had inter alia provided –
that ordinarily the directly recruited officers shall be eligible to apply
for deputation only after successful completion of probation period
and after completing five years of service ; that there will be
mandatory cooling-off period of 03 years after every
deputation , also including the deputation outside the department ;
that any deputation shall require the approval of both the borrowing
and lending Cadre Controlling Authorities (C.C.A.s) ; that a request
for deputation will be entertained by the C.C.A.s or the C.&A.G.
Headquarters Office only if it is received along with N.O.C./consent of
the Borrowing Office ; that a deputation was valid only for the
period for which it was approved and any extension was
neither automatic nor should be presumed merely on the
ground that the C.C.A. or the employee had made a request for
extension ; that an employee on deputation shall relinquish charge
and get himself/herself relieved on the last day of deputation, if no
orders extending deputation by the C.C.A. were issued and an
employee who did not hand over charge at the end of approved
period of deputation would be immediately liable for disciplinary
action and break-in-service for the period beyond the approved date ;
and that the tenure of deputation once approved shall not be
taken for granted and the deputationist was liable to be
YOGENDRA SINGH
MEENA
18
OA No. 337/2026
repatriated back either if his/her performance and conduct was not
up to the mark to the satisfaction of the borrowing authority, or for
other administrative reason .
16. In the present case of the Applicant, who had been appointed to
the post of A.A.O. and allocated P.A.G.(Audit-I)Tamilnadu i.e.
Respondent No.4 as his Parent Office, had been allowed a deputation
at his own request which was specified to be not in public interest, to
the Borrowing Office, viz. P.D.A./D.G.A. (F&C) New Delhi (i.e.
Respondent No.1). Such deputation was for an initially specified
period of one year, subject to extensions as and when allowed ;
eventually, his deputation period had been extended by one year
each on two occasions till 03.07.2025 with the consent/N.O.C. of his
Parent Office. However, as per the extant policy, such extension was
not to be deemed automatic and the Applicant was required to be
repatriated in case extension was not granted inspite of the requests
by the Applicant and/or the Borrowing Office ; moreover, he was
liable for repatriation at any time for other administrative reasons.
The extension beyond 03 years w.e.f. 04.07.2025 had not been
agreed upon by his Parent Office in light of staff shortage there,
despite request by the Applicant and the Borrowing Office. Thus, the
Applicant was required to repatriate w.e.f. 04.07.2025 from his
deputation at the Borrowing Office as per the specified terms of his
deputation as well as the extant Policy dated 25.01.2025 for
deputation within I.A.&.A.D.
However, the Applicant in this instant case, although repatriated to
his Parent Office vide Orders dated 01.04.2026 of the Respondent
No.(1, 3) had still not reported back to his Parent Office. Apart from
conveying to the Applicant that his lending authority/office had not
acceded to the proposal for extension of his deputation for the fourth
year (i.e. from 04.07.2025 to 03.07.2026) ; and he was thus liable to
hand over charge at the end of approved period of deputation (i.e. up
to 03.07.2025) – it had also been conveyed to him that he would
further be immediately liable for disciplinary action and break-in-
service for the period beyond the approved date. Also, the Applicant
was liable to serve the mandatory cooling-off period of 03 years in his
YOGENDRA SINGH
MEENA
19
OA No. 337/2026
Parent Office after his deputation prior to being considered for
another deputation.
Thus, it emerged that the aforesaid actions on part of Respondents
(No.4, No.1 and No.3) were in alignment with the extant Policy dated
25.01.2025 for deputation within I.A.&A.D. as well as the terms and
conditions of the Applicant’s deputation ; and also in keeping with the
organizational interest considered by the Parent Office. Hence, the
related steps by the Respondents were not found to suffer from any
infirmity or violation of extant Rules/guidelines or arbitrariness per se.
17. Regarding the contention of the Applicant vide the counter
dated 15.07.2026 to the additional affidavit dated 13.07.2026 on the
part of the Respondents, that he had been absorbed/deputed in the
C.E.A. cadre w.e.f. 01.01.2026 itself, i.e. the date since that cadre
had been operationalized ; and was not amenable to
transfer/repatriation from his deputation at the Borrowing Office to
his previous Parent Office – it had been submitted on part of the
Respondents that the Applicant had been allowed the previous
deputation by his Parent Office to the Borrowing Office vide initial
Order dated 01.07.2022 for one year ; and together with subsequent
extensions allowed, it had continued up to 03.07.2025 – but had not
been extended thereafter. Hence, the Applicant was required to
repatriate/rejoin in his Parent Office thereafter ; and the same was a
requirement prior to and independent of the Circular No.43 issued
eventually later on 21.11.2025 by the Respondent No.5 relating to
framework/process for creation of new centralized cadres (C.E.A. and
C.R.A.) at the S.A.O. and A.A.O. level.
Further, it was submitted that the said Circular No.43 of
21.11.2025,had conveyed of the approval of the C.&A.G. for the
creation of two cadres of C.E.A. and C.R.A. ; but in pursuance of such
in-principle approval, the roadmap for future
implementation/operationalization was also indicatedtherein itself,
inter alia – that both those cadres were planned to be operationalized
with effect from 01.01.2026 ; that detailed office-wise revised
sanction strength as well as the finalized sanctioned strength of those
YOGENDRA SINGH
MEENA
20
OA No. 337/2026
cadres will be issued separately ; and that the Transfer and Posting
Policy in continuation of that Circular shall be issued shortly
thereafter. It was thus laid out through the initial Circular No.43 dated
21.11.2025 itself that while 01.01.2026 was the intended/deemed
date of creation of C.E.A. and C.R.A. cadres ; but several
administrative/operational steps would be required to be carried out
to ensure reachingthe stage whereby any employee, inter alia the
Applicant, would be posted/deputed to the C.E.A. cadre.
It emerged thus that the said Circular No.43 of 21.11.2025,had
conveyed the in-principle approval for constitution of the C.E.A. and
C.R.A. cadres planned to be effected from 01.01.2026,that enabled
various administrative/operational steps relating to cadre
management, establishment matters, deployment, manpower
planning etc. to be planned for and taken in due course. Accordingly,
variousimplementation steps in follow-up to the initial Circular No.43
dated 21.11.2025 had been taken from time to time in due course ;
which relevantly had included inter alia – seeking of options from the
existing employees (S.A.O.s and A.A.O.s) at first up to 05.12.2025 ;
circulating the Transfer & Posting Policy-(20.01.2026) vide the
Circular No.03 dated 21.01.2026 issued by Respondent No.5 ;
obtaining of options for base station and choice posting stations
through self-declaration by reopening the options window till
27.01.2016 ; publication vide the Circular No.15 dated 20.03.2026
issued by Respondent No.5, of the seniority list dated 20.03.2026 in
updation of transfer and posting data for C.E.A. and C.R.A. cadres;
holding of the meeting of the duly constituted Transfer & Posting
Board (T.&P.B.) in May-2026 to recommend transfers/postings in
C.E.A. for S.A.O.s/A.A.O.s after considering the administrative
requirements as well as their options received ; and vide the Circular
No.31 dated 16.06.2026 issued by Respondent No.5, the
transfer/postings in C.E.A. for certain existing employees
(S.A.O.s/A.A.O.s); etc. Thus, it required several administrative
actions/procedures, fulfilling the requisites duly, to reach the stage of
absorption/posting of the existing employees (S.A.O.s/A.A.O.s) to the
new C.E.A.cadre eventually on 16.06.2026.
YOGENDRA SINGH
MEENA
21
OA No. 337/2026
18. In light of the foregoing, it emerged that the operationalization
of the C.E.A. and C.R.A. cadres was not a one-shot process. Different
necessary steps for its operationalization in follow-up were being
taken continuously and in due course later. However, those other
requisite administrative steps, as mentioned herein before, were part
of continuing implementation process. The obtaining of the Option
Form as such was to merely collate the information for processing of
transfer and postings later ; and the inclusion of the Applicant’s name
in the C.E.A. seniority list dated 20.03.2026 was in updation of the
transfer and posting data, which had been duly considered separately
by the constituted T.&P.B. along with the administrative requirements
while making their recommendations – which had eventually been
approved and the Transfer/Posting Orders issued on 16.06.2026 for
C.E.A. in respect of only 328 employees (S.A.O.s and A.A.O.s) out of
1329 A.A.O.s and 231 S.A.O.s.
It also emerged hence that 01.01.2026 as the deemed/planned date
of operationalization of the cadre was neither identical nor can be
misconstrued to be the date from which any individual
employeewould be deemed to be appointed/deputed to the C.E.A.
cadre. The latter had been distinctly done through a specific Order for
the purpose – viz. Circular No.31 of16.06.2026 of Respondent No.5.
19. It was also contended on behalf of Respondent No.5 that thus,
the claim of the Applicant not being amenable to repatriation after
01.01.2026, i.e. the date deemed for constitution of C.E.A. cadre
from his previous deputation allowed by his Parent Office was apart
from being without any basis, was further flawed and unmaintainable
– firstly being self-contradictory prima facie, since the Applicant had
acknowledged of the pending implementation steps for new
C.E.A./C.R.A vide his representation dated 11.01.2026 ; and since the
Applicant had submitted his final Option Form to be absorbed/deputed
to the centralized C.E.A. cadre on 21.01.2026 only.Secondly, the
same was a patent afterthought too, inter alia – since the Applicant
had undertaken before this Tribunal on 27.02.2026 that in case the
Respondents do not post him by 31.03.2026 in the restructured
C.E.A. Cadre as per the choice given by him then he shall join at
YOGENDRA SINGH
MEENA
22
OA No. 337/2026
Chennai in pursuance to the impugned Transfer/Repatriation Order
dated 21.11.2025, which had been incorporated vide Order dated
27.02.2026 in O.A. No.046/2026 – but was not complied to by him.
Also, the Applicant had conveyed his intention to comply with the
same through his own prayers to competent authorities at his
Borrowing/Parent Offices – that via e-mail dated 27.03.2026 to be
sanctioned Composite Transfer Grant which had been advanced to
him duly on 17.04.2026 ; and that via e-mail dated 02.04.2026 to be
allowed further joining time from 02.04.2026 to 13.04.2026 which
had not been acceded to – but was now seeking to backtrack from the
aforesaid undertaking/intention.
Hence, it was submitted that the Applicant was misleading the
competent authorities as well as this Tribunal by citing inadmissible
and untenable grounds for his non-repatriation/non-transfer to his
Parent Office station. His repatriation had been already much delayed
– as the same became due on 04.07.2025 itself and as the specific
Transfer/Repatriation Order for not acceding to his prayer for any
further extension of his deputation under the Borrowing Office and for
his repatriation to Parent Office having been issued on 21.11.2025 by
the Respondent No.4. Related matters stood dealt with in the various
related litigations, vide O.A.s No.046/2026 and No.195/2026,both of
which had actually been filed and decided after 01.01.2026.
Thus, it had emerged that the C.E.A.cadre having been approved to
be created vide Circular No.43 dated 21.11.2025 and planned to be
operationalized w.e.f. 01.01.2026 cannot be construed to be
tantamount to Applicant as having been absorbed/deputed in that
cadre from 01.01.2026 itself, without having opted for it or without
the specific procedures and requirements being fulfilled in follow-up to
the aforesaid Circular No.43 dated 21.11.2025. Such requisite steps –
such as, notifying the Transfer Policy-(20.01.2016), or obtaining of
options for a base station and choice posting stations of employees
through self-declaration till 27.01.2016, or publication of the seniority
list dated 20.03.2026 in updation of transfer and posting data for CEA
and CRA cadres, or holding of the meeting of the T.&P.B. in May-
2026, or transfer/postings in C.E.A. for certain S.A.O.s/A.A.O.s vide
YOGENDRA SINGH
MEENA
23
OA No. 337/2026
the Orders dated 16.06.2026, etc. – were part of continuing
implementation process ; that had been taken in due course later
from time to time. None of the afore-mentioned stepshad suffered
from any infirmity or from being violative of the related guidelines as
had been circulated. Those also cannot be construed – either to
confer any vested right to a specific posting or transfer upon any
employee (S.A.O.s and A.A.O.s) ; or to confer any status upon the
Applicant of having been absorbed/deputed in the C.E.A. cadre w.e.f.
01.01.2026 itself, i.e. the date since that cadre had been
operationalized ; or consequentially confer any immunity/non-
amenability to transfer/repatriation from his Borrowing Office to his
Parent Office of his previous deputation.
20. Regarding the claim of the Applicant that since the choices of
certain employees included in the list of 328 employees who had been
posted vide the order dated 16.06.2026 had been accommodated
while issuing the Transfer/Posting Orders dated 16.06.2026 for the
C.E.A., that would automatically create a right in his favour to be
allowed transfer and posting as per his choices ; and that even if he
were not to be immediately transferred/posted accordingly, he had to
be retained in Jaipur as per the provision for non-transferred
employees to be posted on ‘as-is-where-is’ basis – it had been
submitted on behalf of the Respondents that it was upto the
competent administrative authority to decide posting and transfer of
its employee in the best organizational interest. Accordingly, out of
1329 A.A.O.s and 231 S.A.O.s, only 328 S.A.O.s and A.A.O.s were
listed in the transfer/posting order dated 16.06.2026, but there was
no legal basis for the claim that any right had been created for the
Applicant, for transfer/posting at one of his preferred/choice stations.
It had been fairly accepted by the learned Sr.C.G.S.C. that for the
other 1232 officers who did not figure in that transfer/posting order, it
had been provided vide para 2.4 of the Circular No.31 dated
16.06.2026 that the employees would continue in their existing office
on ‘as-is-where-is’ basis until further orders. About the interpretation
of ‘as-is-where-is’ basis, the learned Sr.C.G.S.C. had argued that it
would emerge from the relevant facts and Orders that the impugned
YOGENDRA SINGH
MEENA
24
OA No. 337/2026
Transfer/Repatriation order dated 21.11.2025 issued by the
Respondent No.4 and Repatriation Order dated 03.12.2025 issued by
the Respondent No.1, had only been stayed till 31.03.2026 by this
Tribunal ; and more so, the Applicant had submitted before this
Tribunal that in case no orders were issued in respect of his
absorption/transfer posting under C.E.A. cadre by 31.03.2026, he
would re-join in his Parent Office, viz. the Office of Respondent No.4.
in compliance to the impugned Transfer/Repatriation order dated
21.11.2025. The said undertaking had not been observed by him ever
since by filing repeated litigations on one ground or the other. It was
submitted that a period of nearly 13 months had elapsed since
04.07.2025, i.e. the date on which the Applicant’s repatriation from
his previous deputation had become due ; and a period of nearly 09
months had elapsed even from 21.11.2025, i.e. the date the specific
Transfer/Repatriation Order for not acceding to his prayer for any
further extension of his deputation under the Borrowing Office and for
his repatriation to Parent Office issued by the Respondent No.4.
Further, it had been submitted that he had again been ordered to be
repatriated vide order dated 01.04.2026 pursuant to the first T.&P.B.
recommendations ; and vide the Order dated 17.04.2026 in the O.A.
No.195/2026, this Tribunal had specifically not considered any
interference with the impugned Transfer Order dated 21.11.2025 and
the consequential Relieving Order dated 01.04.2026 – hence those
orders were valid and stood unencumbered at the time of issuance of
the Transfer Orders dated 16.06.2026 for the employees in the C.E.A.
cadre. Hence, the factual status of the Applicant was that he stood
relieved as on 01.04.2026 to join in his Parent Office of the
P.D.A.(Audit-I) Tamilnadu at Chennai. Yet he had so far not joined
there, despite his undertaking to do sobefore this Tribunal and despite
drawal of C.T.G. advance etc. – by pursuing various litigations and on
the strength of the relatedOrders– dated 27.02.2026 in O.A.
No.046/2026 ; dated 17.04.2026 in O.A. No.195/2026 ; and interim
Order dated 14.05.2026 in the present O.A. No.337/2026.
21. Moreover, as per Transfer Policy-(20.01.2026), employee
preferences were considered subject to exigencies and
YOGENDRA SINGH
MEENA
25
OA No. 337/2026
organizationalrequirements. Further, an officer became eligible for
consideration of a deputation transfer request only upon completion
of three years in his Parent Office. In the present case, although the
Applicant was relievedfrom his previous deputation for his Parent
Office vide order dated 01.04.2026,he had not joined therein.
Nonetheless, only his Parent Office had to be considered as his correct
place of posting presently. Consequently, he had also not completed
the prescribed minimum tenure of three years in his Parent Office as
at present. Also, the averment that the T.&P.B. convened in May-
2026 had based its recommendations on such facts/consideration for
the Applicant was uncontested. Hence, the Applicant’s name had
rightly not figured in the Transfer/Posting Order dated 16.06.2026
issued for 328 officials for the C.E.A. ; andhe would be deemed to be
posted at his Parent Office under Respondent No.4, even on ‘as-is-
where-is’ basis.
Thus, it had emerged that the Applicant’s claim to be posted in Jaipur
in the CEA cadre on ‘as-is-where-is’ basis was not tenable as the
Applicant had already been relieved from his previous deputation by
the Borrowing Department on 01.04.2026 and his representation
against the same had also been disposed of since, vide the impugned
Memo dated 07.05.2026 of Respondent No.4. Moreover, he was also
not eligible for consideration of another deputation from his Parent
Office till the time the Transfer/Posting Orders dated 16.06.2026 for
C.E.A. had been issued pursuant to recommendations of the duly
constituted T.&P.B.
22. Further, it is apposite to advert to the settled position that there
cannot be any estoppel against law and the actions of any third party
cannot create a right against the extant law/rules. In the present
case, the facts that had been brought on record before us showed
that the Applicant’s Parent authority/office had not acceded to the
proposal for extension of his previous deputation for the fourth year
(i.e. from 04.07.2025 to 03.07.2026). Thus, as per the extant policy
for deputation within the I.A.&A.D., the Applicant was liable to hand-
over charge at the end of the approved period of such deputation (i.e.
up to 03.07.2025) and rejoin his Parent Office thereafter. Eventually,
YOGENDRA SINGH
MEENA
26
OA No. 337/2026
although repatriated to rejoin his Parent Office vide order dated
01.04.2026 of the Respondent No.1 and the follow-up Order also
dated 01.04.2026 of the Office of Respondent No.3, the Applicant had
still not reported back to join his Parent Office. The Applicanthad
claimed for his absorption into another new cadre i.e. C.E.A., and
posting as per his preferred/choice stations indicated in his Option
Form dated 21.01.2026, based on the Circular No.15 dated
20.03.2026 issued by Respondent No.5 of final seniority list of
C.E.A./C.R.A. cadre for updation of transfer and posting data.
As per the extant position of law related, the deputation of the
Applicant to the C.E.A. cadre would only be possible from his Parent
Office and it was not be open for any other authority or even the
borrowing office i.e.Respondent No.1to let him be deputed/absorbed
in a different cadre without his having reverted back to his Parent
Office and without such deputation being duly from hisParent Office.
The same cannot be legally permissible on the basis of any other
Order issued by any other authority whatsoever ; much less the same
cannot be deemed automatically resultantly from publishing of the
seniority list vide Circular No.15 dated 20.03.2026 issued by
Respondent No.5 for updation of transfer and posting data. Moreover,
it had been brought out that the extant Policy for deputation within
the I.A.&A.D. had incorporated that there will be mandatory
cooling-off period of 03 years after every deputation , and that
any deputation shall require the approval of both the borrowing and
lendingC.C.A.s. Even the Transfer/Posting policy-(20.01.2026)
governing the C.E.A. cadre provided that an officer would be eligible
for consideration of a second deputation only after three years of
cooling-off since repatriation from a previous deputation.
It had emerged thus in the instant case that the Applicant’s
repatriation from his previous deputation had become due on
04.07.2025 itself ; and further that the specific Transfer/Repatriation
Order for not acceding to his prayer for any further extension of his
deputation under the Borrowing Office and for his repatriation to
Parent Office had specifically been issued on 21.11.2025 by the
Respondent No.4. Moreover, the Orders in the various litigations
YOGENDRA SINGH
MEENA
27
OA No. 337/2026
related to his repatriation from his previous deputation had stood
fulfilled, yet he had not actually repatriated or joined back at his
Parent Office i.e. Respondent No.4. Consequently, he could not be
deemed to be available for deputation to another cadre since he had
failed to meet the prescribed requirementsas per the extant
rules/guidelines which had to prevail without estoppel.
23. Therefore, it emerged that the Applicant, who was an A.A.O.
with Respondent No.4 as Parent Office, had been allowed a
deputation not in public interest, within the I.A.&A.D. to Respondent
No.1 as Borrowing Office, for a period of one year initially and had
joined accordingly on 04.07.2022. Subsequent extensions had been
allowed twice by one year each, with the terms as specified in the
related Orders. The Applicant had been on deputation up to
03.07.2025 with different postings ; but thereafter, the competent
authority in his Parent Office had not acceded to extension of his
deputation further ; whereupon the Applicant’srepatriation to his
Parent Office became due on 04.07.2025 itself. Despite the
Transfer/Repatriation Order dated 21.11.2025 of Respondent No.4,
conveying such non-acceding to his prayer for any further extension
of his deputation under the Borrowing Office and asking for his
repatriation to the Parent Office –the Applicant had not joined there,
despite undertaking before this Tribunal and despite drawal of C.T.G.
advance etc. – while pursuing various related litigations.
In the conspectus of all the foregoing, after detailed examination of
the rival contentions in relation to the various issues raised related to
the Applicant’s repatriation/non-repatriation, the extant
Rules/guidelines, the administrative Orders and Circulars, the history
of related litigations before this Tribunal etc.,it had been found that –
the transfer/Repatriation Order dated 21.11.2025 of the Respondent
No.4 and the Letter dated 03.12.2025 of Respondent No.1 for the
Applicant’s relieving and the later Relieving Order issued on
01.04.2026 by Respondent No.3 were in alignment with the extant
Policy dated 25.01.2025 for deputation within I.A.&A.D. as well as the
terms and conditions of the Applicant’s deputation ; and also in
keeping with the organizational interest considered by the Parent
YOGENDRA SINGH
MEENA
28
OA No. 337/2026
Office. Hence, the related steps inter alia in issuing the relevant
Transfer Orders by the Respondents were not found to suffer from
any mala fides or violation of extant Rules/guidelines or arbitrariness.
Also, transfer was an incident of service as per rules and
administrative covenants and the underlying administrative right of
the Respondents to re-examine or properly decide the transfer
representation in accordance with the law/guidelines and
administrative necessity had in no way been invalidated or ousted by
any Orders of this Tribunal, interim or otherwise – in fact, it had been
explicitly indicated by this Tribunal that we were not inclined to
interfere with the impugned Transfer/Repatriation Order dated
21.11.2025 of Respondent No.4 or with the impugned orders dated
01.04.2026 of Respondents No.(1, 3) for relieving of the Applicant.
Further, in respect of the earlier Orders of this Tribunal that had a
bearing on the present matter, it had been found that the order of
‘no coercive action’ against the Applicant was limited in remit as a
legal restraint upon the employer from executing harsh or forceful
enforcement measures only in respect of the Transfer/Repatriation
Order dated 21.11.2025 and the Letter dated 03.12.2025 seeking for
him to be relieved, both of the office of Respondent No.4 (i.e. his
Parent Office) ; and the latter Orders dated 01.04.2026 of the Office
of the Respondent No.(1, 3) (i.e. the Borrowing Office for him) to join
in his Parent Office of Tamil Nadu at Chennai ; only while his
representation to the Respondents was pendingand/or the legality of
the Applicant’s transfer/repatriation was sub-judice. The aforesaid
actions/Orders had not been quashed specifically by this Tribunal, but
were made subject to the interim Order dated 14.05.2026 of this
Tribunal in the present O.A. No.337/2026 ; and thus, once the
representation dated 02.04.2026 of the Applicant had been disposed
of by the Respondent No.4 vide the Memo dated 07.05.2026, as well
as the Transfer/Posting Order dated 14.06.2026 had been issued by
the Respondent No.5, in consideration of organizational requirements
and the options submitted by the employees, the protection vide the
said interim order dated 14.05.2026 would also stand fulfilled.
YOGENDRA SINGH
MEENA
29
OA No. 337/2026
Moreover, regarding the aspects related to creation and
operationalization of the C.E.A.cadre, it had been found that the said
cadre having been approved to be created vide Circular No.43 dated
21.11.2025 and planned to be operationalized w.e.f. 01.01.2026
cannot be construed to be tantamount to Applicant as having been
absorbed/deputed in that cadre from 01.01.2026 itself, without his
option being considered for it or without the specific procedures and
requirements being fulfilled in follow-up to the aforesaid Circular
No.43 dated 21.11.2025, for which requisite steps and specific Orders
had been taken by the Respondents from time to time in due course.
Also, it was the prerogative of the administrative authority to decide
upon the requirements of their organization and post its officers in the
manner deemed best by them; and the employees of the
organization, inter alia the Applicant, having been allowed to give
their choices for a base station/preferred places of posting,or inclusion
of the Applicant’s name in the C.E.A. seniority list dated 20.03.2026
to update the transfer and posting data, or such data being
considered separately by the duly constituted T.&P.B. for their
recommendation after also factoring in the administrative
requirements ; etc. – would in no way create a vested right for any
employee, inter alia the Applicant, to be deemed to be posted in the
C.E.A. cadre either from 01.01.2026 or any later date, that tooat his
preferred/choice station only.
Even further, regarding the status of the Applicant currently – as the
Applicant had already been relieved from his previous deputation to
the Borrowing Office vide Orders dated 01.04.2026 of the
Respondents No.(1, 3) ; and his representation against the same had
also been disposed of since, vide the impugned Memo dated
07.05.2026of Respondent No.4, he was required to transfer/repatriate
from his ongoing deputation at the Borrowing Office to join his
previous Parent Office, only from where he could seek another
deputation to be posted under C.E.A. subject to fulfilling the related
norms. Also,he was not eligible for consideration of another
deputation from his Parent Office at the time of the
meeting/recommendations of the duly constituted T.&P.B. as well as
when the Transfer and Posting Orders dated 16.06.2026 of existing
YOGENDRA SINGH
MEENA
30
OA No. 337/2026
employees (S.A.O.s/A.A.O.s)had been issued in pursuance thereto.
Also further, while the provision of para 2.4 of the Circular no.31
dated 16.06.2026 providing that the employees would continue in
their existing office on ‘as-is-where-is’ basis until further orderswould
apply to his case, Applicant’s claim to be posted in the C.E.A. cadre
on ‘as-is-where-is’ basis only in Jaipur was found to be untenable.
24. Together with the settled position that there cannot be any
estoppel against law and the actions of any third party cannot create
a right against the extant law/rules; the facts on record in the present
casebefore us also showed – that the Applicant’s Parent Office had
not acceded to the proposal for extension of his deputation within
I.A.&A.D. for the fourth year (i.e. from 04.07.2025 to 03.07.2026) ;
and that although repatriated as such to rejoin his Parent Office vide
orders dated 01.04.2026 of the Respondents No.(1, 3), the Applicant
had still not reported back to join his Parent Office – the Applicant’s
claim for his absorption into yet another cadre i.e. C.E.A. based on
the Transfer & Posting Circular No.15 dated 20.03.2026 issued by
Respondent No.5or even on any other Order/action of any other
authority whatsoever, cannot be legally permissible, because as per
the transfer and posting policy governing the C.E.A. cadre, an officer
would be eligible for consideration of a second deputation only upon
completion of the cooling-off period after the previous deputation,
which had to prevail without estoppel.
24. Therefore, the present O.A. isfound to fail on merit and is
accordingly dismissed. The impugned Orders – that dated 21.11.2025
(issued by Respondent No.4), that dated 03.12.2025 (issued by
Respondent No.1), that dated 01.04.2026 [issued by Respondent
No.(1, 3)] and that dated 07.05.2026 (issued by Respondent No.4) –
are not interfered with. Pending M.A.s, if any, shall also stand
disposed of in accordance. No order as to costs.
(LOK RANJAN) (RANJANA SHAHI)
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
/ysm/
YOGENDRA SINGH
MEENA