SAKTHIVEL A vs DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES, RIVER DEVELOPMENT AND GANGA REJUVENATION

1
OA No.170/00186/2026/CAT/BANGALORE

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00186/2026

ORDER RESERVED ON: 01.09.2026
DATE OF ORDER: 04.09.2026

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. SANTOSH MEHRA ..MEMBER(A)


1. Sri Sakthivel A.,
S/o Smt. K. Alagurani,
Aged about 50 years,
Working as Scientist D
Central Ground Water Board
South Western Region,
Bangalore 560 102,
R/a No. 575, Block 42, CPWD quarters,
th
27 Main, HSR Layout, Bengaluru 560 102 ...Applicant

(By Advocate, Shri Ranganatha S.Jois)

Vs.

1. The Union of India,
Represented by the Secretary,
Department of Water Resources, River Development
And Ganga Rejuvenation,
Central Government Water Board,
New Delhi – 110 001

2. The Chairman,
Central Ground Water Board,
Bhujal Bhavan, NH-4,
Faridabad, Hariyana -121 001



TARU LATA
CAT Bangalore
TARU
2026.09.04
15:01:58
+05'30'
LATA

2
OA No.170/00186/2026/CAT/BANGALORE

3. The Officer-In-Charge,
Central Ground Water Board, SUO
New Delhi 110 001

4. The Regional Director,
Central Ground Water Board,
South Western Region,
th th
No. 13-195/17, 27 Main, 7 Cross,
HSR Layout, Sector – 1,
Bangalore – 560 102. ...Respondents

(By Advocate, Shri S. Prakash Shetty)
O R D E R
Per: Hon’ble Shri Santosh Mehra ……Member(A)
Through this OA, the applicant has sought the following reliefs:
“(i) CALL for records relating to the impugned the order
of transfer bearing No. 14-12/2025- Vyajanika Sthapana-
1391 dated 01/4/2026 passed by Respondent No.2 vide
Annexure-A1 and endorsement bearing No. 14-12/2025-
Vyajanika Sthapana -1770 dated 27/4/2026 passed by
Respondent No.2 vide Annexure-A4 rejection of the
request of the Applicant, PERUSE AND QUASH of the
said endorsement and the order of transfer transferring
the Applicant to Belgavi as being arbitrary, illegal and
violative of Article 14 & 16(1) of the Constitution of
India;
ii) ISSUE a writ order or direction to the Respondents to
continue the Applicant as Scientist D, Central Ground
Water Board, SouthWestern Region, Bangalore Office till
the completion of the academic year of the ward of
Applicant and also being a Nodal Officer JSJB, in the
interest of justice and equity;
iii) PASS such other orders as deemed fit in the facts and
circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and
equity.
TARU LATA
CAT Bangalore
TARU
2026.09.04
15:01:58
+05'30'
LATA

3
OA No.170/00186/2026/CAT/BANGALORE

2. The facts in a nutshell are as follows:
The application is aggrieved by the Order of Transfer dated 01/04/2026 passed
by the 2nd Respondent, and also the consequential rejection of his
representation for retention as per the letter dated 27/04/2026. The Applicant
wants to continue his services at Bangalore in the present Office till the
completion of the academic year of her daughter who is studying in 12th
standard on certain grounds, including that, similarly situated persons have
made representations and their requests have been considered. In his view the
rejection of her request is arbitrary and discriminatory and violative of Article
14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India. Hence, he has approached this
Tribunal for relief.
3. Applicant
(i) The Applicant, has been working as a scientist D at Central Government
Water Board, South Western Region, Bangalore office from February 2021 and
has been transferred to Belagavi Office by the impugned order dated
01.04.2026. Being aggrieved by the said Order of Transfer, the Applicant
submitted a representation on 07.04.2026 which was rejected by the impugned
endorsement dated 27.04.2026, stating that his representation has not been
considered. However, several similar requests of other Officers have been
considered as per Orders dated 27.04.2026. The applicant is aggrieved by the
non-consideration of his representation against the Order of Transfer, whereas
similarly situated persons requests have been considered.
TARU LATA
CAT Bangalore
TARU
2026.09.04
15:01:58
+05'30'
LATA

4
OA No.170/00186/2026/CAT/BANGALORE

(ii) To substantiate his arguments, the learned counsel for the applicant has
placed reliance on following jugements:
(1) State of Tamil Nadu vs. E.P. Royappa -AIR 1974 SC 555
(2) Pushkar Naraiah Sharma Vs. Union of the India and others -
2025: RJ-JP: 36738-DB
(3) Director of School Education Madras and others Vs. O.
Karuppa Thevan -1994 SCC Supl. (2) 666
(4) Dr. Shanthikumari and others Vs. Union of India (CAT,
Chennai Bench in O.A. No. 469, 470, 480, 481 and 523/2023)

4. Grounds for Relief:
The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted several grounds to get the
relief, which are summarized as below:
th
(i) The Applicant’s daughter is studying in 12 standard and therefore he
may be continued till the completion of the academic year of his daughter. He
is a single parent and there is no other person to look after her daughter. He is
willing to report for Belagavi soon after the academic year of his daughter is
over.
(ii) Similar requests of other officials have also been considered as per
Orders dated 27.04.2026, vide Annexure A-5 and A-6. In one order (Annexure
A-5), nine persons have been granted extension, and in another order
(Annexure A-6), twenty eight persons have been granted extension. When
similarly situated requests have been considered as per these orders, the non-
consideration of the request of the Applicant is clearly violative of Article 14
and 16(1) of the Constitution of India.
TARU LATA
CAT Bangalore
TARU
2026.09.04
15:01:58
+05'30'
LATA

5
OA No.170/00186/2026/CAT/BANGALORE

(iii) The applicant is the Nodal Officer, JSJB and though the present
identification of project is up to 31/5/2026, the same will be continued up to
2028. To disturb the applicant in the midst of the project is also against the
public interest.
5. Reply
The learned counsel for the Respondents has filed the reply.
(i) According to the learned counsel for the respondents, the Central
Ground Water Board (CGWB) is a subordinate organization under the Ministry
of Water Resources, River Development & Ganga Rejuvenation, and
Government of India. There are 18 Regional Offices at various State Capitals,
headed by Regional Directors. Besides, there are 17 Divisional Offices and 11
State Unit Offices. The service conditions of officers and employees of CGWB
have a mandatory provision, according to which one can be posted to any part
of the country as per the requirements of the Organization. All the officers and
employees are expected to serve in various parts of the country to get a holistic
vision, exposure and gain broad experience.
(ii) The learned counsel for the respondents points out that a "Rotational
Transfer Policy" (RTP) has been issued vide letter No. 4-5001311412021- (GW
Estt) Section -Ministry of Water Resources, dated 11.06.2021 and the transfer
of the applicant is strictly as per this Policy. Clause 7(iv) which deals with
transfer on administrative grounds clearly states that notwithstanding anything
contained in this policy, the Competent Authority may, transfer any officer/staff
at any station or post, if necessary in public interest. The transfer of the
TARU LATA
CAT Bangalore
TARU
2026.09.04
15:01:58
+05'30'
LATA

6
OA No.170/00186/2026/CAT/BANGALORE

applicant, along with many other officers, is based on recommendation of
Placement Committee and is as per rules. As per Para 16 of RTP, the main
objective of transfer is to meet the requirements of the organization and
Organizational interest is supreme. In the present case, the transfer of the
applicant has been effected strictly in accordance with the said policy and in
view of administrative exigencies and organizational requirements. Transfer
and posting are incidents of service and are governed primarily by
administrative requirements, organizational interest and exigencies of service.
(iii) The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the Impugned Order
dated 01.04.2026, pertaining to transfers and postings of scientists working in
Central Ground Water Board has been issued in public interest by the
respondent in respect of thirty five officers, including the applicant. The post
held by the applicant carries all-India service liability, and he is liable to serve
anywhere in India. The Applicant is a Scientist 'D' (Hg), Group 'A' officer of
the Central Ground Water Board, who initially joined CGWB, NHR,
Dharamshala on 27.01.2004. After rendering more than five years of service at
Dharamshala, the Applicant was transferred to SWR, Bangalore, where he
served for approximately three years. Thereafter, he was transferred to SECR,
Chennai and remained posted there for around eight years. Subsequently, in
2021, the Applicant was again transferred and posted to SWR, Bangalore. The
applicant has now completed more than five years of on service tenure at the
present station SWR, Bangalore prescribed and has also rendered an aggregate
tenure of more than eight years at Bangalore. In terms of Clause 14 of the
Rotational Transfer Policy (RTP), the prescribed maximum tenure at a station
TARU LATA
CAT Bangalore
TARU
2026.09.04
15:01:58
+05'30'
LATA

7
OA No.170/00186/2026/CAT/BANGALORE

for a Group 'A' officer already stands exhausted/completed. Accordingly, the
Applicant has been transferred to Belgavi due to administrative exigency and in
the interest of organizational requirements, strictly in accordance with the
applicable policy provisions.
(iv) The learned counsel for the respondents further argues that it is a settled
principle of Service Jurisprudence that a government servant holding a
transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at a particular station
indefinitely. There are several judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court which state
that transfer of employee is an incident of service and is made according to
administrative exigencies/public interest. He invites my attention to the
following judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court:
(i) State of Punjab Vs. Joginder Singh Dhatt AIR 1993 SC 2486,
(ii) State of M.P. vs. S.S. Kourav , (1995) 3 SCC 270,
(iii) S.C. Saxena Vs. Union of India and Ors., 2006 (9) SCC 583
(iv) Tamil Nadu Agricultural University & Anr. Vs. R. AGILA ETC ., in
Civil Appeal Nos…. OF 2024 (Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 13070-
13075/2022)
(v) Rajendra Singh vs. State of U.P. & Ors (2009) 15 SCC 178.

6. Memo filed by the Applicant
Learned counsel for the applicant, to further substantiate his averments in the
OA, subsequently on 06.07.2026 furnished certain documents vide Annexures
A11 and A12. According to learned counsel for the applicant, in the orders cited
as these Annexures dated 05.06.2018 and 17.06.2026, the
representations/request petitions of large number of officers who were earlier
TARU LATA
CAT Bangalore
TARU
2026.09.04
15:01:58
+05'30'
LATA

8
OA No.170/00186/2026/CAT/BANGALORE

transferred out, were considered and they were given extension for varying
periods. Citing the orders passed by the respondents in Annexure A-5, A-6, A-
11 and A-12, the learned counsel for the applicant repeatedly asserted that non-
consideration of the case of the applicant, in contrast to the acceptance of the
representations of such a huge number of officers for extension, not just
amounts to discrimination under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India,
but is also a case of legal malafide.
7. Reply filed by the learned counsel for the respondents
In response to the abovementioned documents filed by the counsel for the
applicant and his averment, the learned counsel for the respondents filed a
Memo under Rule 12 of CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987, in which he stated that
transfer is an incident of service, and no employee has a legal or vested right to
be posted at a particular place of choice. He refuted the contention of the
Applicant that the impugned transfer order was violative of Articles 14 and
16(1) of the Constitution of India and termed it as wholly misconceived and
untenable. He states that the transfer has been effected uniformly in accordance
with the RTP and administrative requirements without any arbitrariness,
discrimination, or mala fide intention. Each representation seeking retention,
extension, or cancellation transfer is examined independently on its own
administrative merits, operational requirements, and the prevailing public
interest. He argues that every case is distinct and is evaluated on its own
administrative individual merits. The decisions regarding the other officers
mentioned Applicant were taken keeping in view their specific functional
TARU LATA
CAT Bangalore
TARU
2026.09.04
15:01:58
+05'30'
LATA

9
OA No.170/00186/2026/CAT/BANGALORE

requirements and administrative needs at that time, and the same cannot be
claimed as a matter of right or precedent by the Applicant.
8. Conclusion:
(1) I have given thoughtful consideration to the averments and arguments
of the learned Counsels for the applicant and the respondents. I have also
carefully gone through all the documents which were brought on record by the
respective Counsels including the judgements of the Higher Courts.
(2) It would be useful to have a look at the Judgements of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India and other Courts cited by the learned counsels for the
applicant and the respondents regarding the issue of Transfers and Postings.
(3) The learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on certain
judgements whose relevant extracts are as below:
(i) The Hon’ble Apex Court in E.P. Royappa Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr.
reported in (AIR 1974 SC 555) in Writ Petition No. 284 of 1972, dated
23.11.1973 has held thus:
“………………….
85. The last two grounds of challenge may be taken up together for
consideration. Though we have formulated the third ground of
challenge as a distinct and separate ground, it is really in substance
and effect merely an aspect of the second ground based on violation
of Arts. 14 and 16. Article 16 embodies the fundamental guarantee
that there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters
relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State.
Though enacted as a distinct and independent fundamental right
because of its great importance as a principle ensuring equality of
opportunity in public employment which is so vital to the building up
of the new classless egalitarian society envisaged in the Constitution,
TARU LATA
CAT Bangalore
TARU
2026.09.04
15:01:58
+05'30'
LATA

10
OA No.170/00186/2026/CAT/BANGALORE

Art. 16 is only an instance of the application of the concept of equality
enshrined in Art. 14. In other words, Art. 14 is the genus while Art.
16 is a species, Art. 16 gives effect to the doctrine of equality in all
matters relating to public employment. The basic principle which,
therefore, informs both Arts. 14 and 16 is equality and inhibition
against discrimination. Now, what is the content and reach of this
great equalising principle? It is a founding faith, to use the words of
Bose, J., "a way of life", and it must not be subjected to a narrow
pedantic or lexicographic approach. We cannot countenance any
attempt to truncate its all embracing scope and meaning, for to do so
would be to violate its activist magnitude. Equality is a dynamic
concept with many aspects and dimensions and it cannot be "cribbed,
cabined and confined" within traditional and doctrinaire limits. From
a positivistic point of view, equality is antithetic to arbitrariness. In
fact equality and arbitrariness are sworn enemies; one belongs to the
rule of law in a republic while the other, to the whim and caprice of
an absolute monarch. Where an act is arbitrary, it is implicit in it that
it is unequal both according to political logic and constitutional law
and is therefore violative of Article 14, and if it affects any matter
relating to public employment, it is also violative of Art. 16. Arts. 14
and 16 strike at arbitrariness in State action and ensure fairness and
equality of treatment. They require that State action must be based on
valid relevant principles applicable alike to all similarly situate and
it must not be guided by any extraneous or irrelevant considerations
because that would be denial of equality. Where the operative reason
for State action, as distinguished from motive inducing from the
antechamber of the mind, is not legitimate and relevant but is
extraneous and outside the area of permissible considerations, it
would amount to mala fide exercise of power and that is hit by Arts.
14 and 16. Malafide exercise of power and arbitrariness are different
lethal radiations emanating from the same vice: in fact the latter
comprehends the former. Both are inhibited by Arts. 14 and 16.
86. It is also necessary to point out that the ambit and reach of Arts,
14 and 16 are not limited to cases where the the public servant
affected has a right to a post. Even if a public servant is in an
officiating position, he can complain of violation of Arts. 14 and 16 if
he has been arbitrarily or unfairly treated or subjected to mala fide
exercise of power by the State machine. It is, therefore, no answer to
the charge of infringement of Arts, 14 and 16 to say that the petitioner
had no right to the post of Chief Secretary but was merely officiating
in that post. That might have some relevance to Art. 311 but not to
TARU LATA
CAT Bangalore
TARU
2026.09.04
15:01:58
+05'30'
LATA

11
OA No.170/00186/2026/CAT/BANGALORE

Articles 14 and 16. We must, therefore, proceed to consider whether
the transfer of the petitioner first to the post of Deputy Chairman and
then to the post of Officer on Special Duty was arbitrary, hostile and
is malafide exercise of power. What was the operative reason for such
transfer: was it the exigencies of public administration or extra
administrative considerations having no relevance to the question of
transfer? Was the transfer to the post of Deputy Chairman or Officer
on Special Duty so irrational or unjust that it could not have been
made by any reasonable administration except for collaterial
reasons? These are the questions which call for our consideration.
…………………………”
(ii) Judgement of High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan in D.B. Civil Writ
Petition No. 12821/2025 in the case of Pushkar Naraian Sharma vs. Union
th
of India & Ors., dated 10 September 2025 stated:
“………………
9. We are of the considered view that the Central Government and its
authorities ought to have taken into consideration the aspect
regarding the parents providing education to their children in a
manner that they may be provided appropriate environment to study.
If an employee of the level of Sub-Divisional Engineer or of lower
ranks is transferred from one State to another, admittedly, it would
affect his entire family.
10. We find that the petitioner before us is seeking retention for
providing academic atmosphere to his daughter who is studying and
appearing in examination for Class-XII. While the State Government
and the Central Government are promoting the campaign of 'Beti
Bachao aur Beti Padhao' on one side, their authorities are completely
immune to the requirements of such girls. A compassionate approach
is required to be adopted by officers who helm the health of the
parents. If employees are asked to perform in such an atmosphere
where they are forced to work at different place, it causes disturbance
to their family and their performance would not be up to the mark. At
the same time, the children who are appearing in the Board
Examination may also be affected. The State, while acting as a
welfare State, also has to take care of the mental health of its
employees as well as their families as it is a part of right to life and
liberty under Article 21 of Constitution of India.
TARU LATA
CAT Bangalore
TARU
2026.09.04
15:01:58
+05'30'
LATA

12
OA No.170/00186/2026/CAT/BANGALORE

11. Keeping in view the above, we do not find that the order dated
08.08.2025 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal is
sustainable in law and we accordingly, set aside the same and direct
the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue his services in the
present place of posting in Rajasthan Circle at Jaipur till March,
2026, whereafter the respondents would be free to relieve him to join
at his transferred place of posting.
……………….”

(iii) The Hon’ble Apex Court in Director of School Education Madras
And..Vs. O. Karuppa Thevan dated 31.01.1994 reported in (AIRONLINE
1994 SC 66) has held thus:
“………………
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.”

(iv) In the order of Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench in OA
No. 469, 470, 480, 481 & 523 / 2023 dated 04.09.2023 between Dr.
Shanthikumari and others Vs. Union of India and Ors., it has been held as :
TARU LATA
CAT Bangalore
TARU
2026.09.04
15:01:58
+05'30'
LATA

13
OA No.170/00186/2026/CAT/BANGALORE

“…………………..
12. It is to be noted that though the applicants were transferred by
impugned order dated 20.05.2023, no one has been relieved
immediately and though the applicants have submitted their
grievances to the grievance redressal committee Informing their
children's education status while submitting options for transfer. It is
to be noted that the same has not been considered properly, and had
the respondents given effect to the transfer as per the policy's time
frame, the situation would be in a different way. When the transfer
has been effected in the month of May, the applicants have
approached this Tribunal by filing the present OAs in the month of
June 2023 and Interim relief has been granted in their favour and
hence they are continued in the present place till date. By the time the
children have already completed almost more than half of their
academic session. Moreover the request of the applicants is only
limited that they have to be retained at the present place till the end
of their children's academic session of 10th/12th standard as the
respondents have considered such requests in the matter of transfer
of other employees on earlier occasion.
13. It is to be noted that the 10th/12th standard is very crucial and a
turning point for not only the future of the children but also for the
parents too and particularly the mother's support is much needed
during such time to boost the confidence of the children and enable
them to give their full contribution towards their studies. Hence in my
considered opinion, if the applicants have been allowed to continue
in the present place by relaxing their joining time, no prejudice will
be caused to the respondents and such limited relief can be given to
the applicants herein. The respondents can very well take necessary
undertaking from the applicants that immediately after the 10th/12th
Board examinations, they will report at the transferred place.
Therefore, the respondents are directed to relax the joining period of
the applicants by retaining them at their original place (present
place) where the applicants are working, till the completion of the
academic session of their children who are in 10th/12th Standard by
taking necessary undertaking from the applicants. With this limited
relief the OAs are disposed of as above. No order as to costs.”

TARU LATA
CAT Bangalore
TARU
2026.09.04
15:01:58
+05'30'
LATA

14
OA No.170/00186/2026/CAT/BANGALORE

(4) Per Contra, the learned counsel for the respondents has also placed
reliance on the Judgements of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, whose relevant
extracts are as below:
(i) The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Joginder Singh
Dhatt AIR 1993 SC 2486 , observed as follows:
"……
3…….it is entirely for the employer to decide when, where and at
what point of time a public servant is transferred from his present
posting…….”


(ii) In State of M.P. vs. S.S. Kourav, (1995) 3 SCC 270 , it was held by the
Hon'ble Apex Court that:
“………
4………the courts or Tribunals are not appellate forums to decide on
transfers of officers on administrative grounds. The wheels of
administration should be allowed to run smoothly and the courts or
tribunals are not expected to interdict the working of the
administrative system by transferring the officers to proper places. It
is for the administration to take appropriate decision and such
decisions shall stand unless they are vitiated either by malafides or
by extraneous consideration without any factual background
foundation. In this case we have seen that on the administrative
grounds the transfer orders came to be issued. Therefore, we cannot
go into the expediency of posting an officer at a particular place.”

(iii) In the case of S.C. Saxena Vs. Union of India and Ors., 2006 (9) SCC
583 it was held as under:
"……..
6……In the first place, a Government Servant cannot disobey a
transfer order by not reporting at the place of posting and then go to
Court to ventilate his grievances. It is his duty first to report for work,
TARU LATA
CAT Bangalore
TARU
2026.09.04
15:01:58
+05'30'
LATA

15
OA No.170/00186/2026/CAT/BANGALORE

where he is transferred and make representation as to what may be
his personal problems. This tendency of not reporting at the place of
posting and indulging in litigation needs to be curbed……."

(iv) In the case of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University & Anr. Vs. R.
AGILA ETC., in Civil Appeal Nos…. OF 2024 (Special Leave to Appeal (C)
No(s). 13070-13075/2022) dated 20.08.2024, it was stated as follows:
"……..
5. The focal consideration behind it is that the intent of transfer is to
fill up certain vacancies at the new place of posting and when the
transferred employees fail to join such posts, the said vacancy would
continue and the goal of providing optimal service at full capacity
remains defeated. An even worse situation would arise when the
authorities, while the challenge to such transfer is underway, would
have to employ other individuals to fill up such vacancies and has to
ultimately spend from both the pockets by providing salary to the
employee who is actually delivering such service as well as to the
employee who has remained absent from service unauthorizedly. It
cannot be ignored that such a situation would result in nothing but
burning a hole in the pocket of public exchequer, lead to excessive
financial burden on the Government institutions, and would
fundamentally jeopardize public interest.
6. It is not uncommon to see employees who challenge such orders of
transfer before various forums, extending the litigation to several
years, while choosing to not join the service and still seeking full
salary, and often citing medical conditions as a ground for such
inability to join. It is of utmost importance that, while the legal
challenge runs its course, the needs of administration are treated
paramount in comparison to the inconvenience faced by the
employees in cases of transfer. In this regard, the Government
employers should also take stern measures against such employees
who fail to join the new places of posting without any rationale or an
order of stay being in place."


TARU LATA
CAT Bangalore
TARU
2026.09.04
15:01:58
+05'30'
LATA

16
OA No.170/00186/2026/CAT/BANGALORE

(v) In the case of Rajendra Singh vs. State of U.P. & Ors. it was held as under:
“…………..
5. A Government Servant has no vested right to remain posted at a
place of his choice nor can he insist that he must be posted at one
place or the other. He is liable to be transferred in the administrative
exigencies from one place to the other. Transfer of an employee is not
only an incident inherent in the terms of appointment but also implicit
as an essential condition of service in the absence of any specific
indication to the contrary. No Government can function if the
Government Servant insists that once appointed or posted in a
particular place or position, he should continue in such place or
position as long as he desires [see State of U.P. v. Gobardhan Lal;
(2004) 11 SCC 402].
6. The courts are always reluctant in interfering with the transfer of
an employee unless such transfer is vitiated by violation of some
statutory provisions or suffers from mala fides. In the case of Shilpi
Bose (Mrs.) & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors.1, this Court held:
"4. In our opinion, the courts should not interfere with a
transfer order which is 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
mala fide. 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 overlooked these aspects in interfering with the transfer
orders."
7. In N.K. Singh v. Union of India & Ors.2, this Court reiterated that
the scope of judicial review in matters of transfer of a Government
Servant to an equivalent post without adverse consequence on the
TARU LATA
CAT Bangalore
TARU
2026.09.04
15:01:58
+05'30'
LATA

17
OA No.170/00186/2026/CAT/BANGALORE

service or career prospects is very limited being confined only to the
grounds of mala fides or violation of any specific provision.
………………”

(5) At this stage, it will be also beneficial to have a look at the Impugned
Orders passed by the Respondents:
(i) Impugned order ( Annexure A1 ) dated 01.04.2026.
“ ᮓ मांक 14-12/2025- वै ᭄ ािनक ᭭ थापना -1391
भारत सरकार
,
जल शि Ღ मं ᮢ ालय
,
जल संसाधन िवभाग
,
नदी िवकास और गंगा पुनज ᱮ वन
, ,
क ᱶᮤ ीय भूजल बोड ᭅ भुजल भवन
IV, , 121001
एनएच फरीदाबाद ह ᳯ रयाणा -
01.04.2026
ᳰ दनांक :

117 2026
काया ᭅ लय आदेश सं ᭎ या वष ᭅ
क ᱶᮤ ीय भूजल बोड के िन ᭅ ᳜ िलिखत अिधका ᳯ रय ᲂ का त ᭜ काल ᮧ भाव से उनके नाम के सामने

उि ᭨ लिखत ᭭ थान ᲂ पर ᭭ थानांतरण ᳰ कया जाता है।
The following officers of Central Ground Water Board are hereby transferred to
the places as mentioned against their names with immediate effect
Sl.
No.
Name of Officer
(S/Sh/Dr./Ms.)
Designation Present
Place of
Posting
Place of
posting
on
transfer
-- -- -- -- --
27. Sakhtivel A. Scientist-
‘D’ (Hg.)
SWR,
Bangalore
SUO
Belgavi
-- -- -- -- --

………..
Since the transfer of officers appearing at Sl. No. 1 to 4, 6 to 14, 16 to 28, 30, 32
and 35 have been ordered in public interest, they are entitled to TTA and joining
time as per admissible under the rules. Transfer of officers appearing at Sl. No.
5, 15 29, 33 & 34 have been ordered in own request, hence they are not entitled
to TTA and joining time as per rules Further in respect of Sl No 31, there is no
change of station, he is not entitled for TTA and joining.
, ,
यह काया ᭅ लय आदेश अ ᭟ य ᭃ क ᱶᮤ ीय भूजल बोड क ᭅ ᳱ ᭭ वीकृित से जारी ᳰ कया गया है।
TARU LATA
CAT Bangalore
TARU
2026.09.04
15:01:58
+05'30'
LATA

18
OA No.170/00186/2026/CAT/BANGALORE

This issues with the approval of Chairman, CGWB.”

(ii) Impugned Order ( Annexure A4 ) dated 27.04.2026.

“ ᮓ मांक 14-12/2025- वै ᭄ ािनक ᭭ थापना - 1770
भारत सरकार ,
जल शि Ღ मं ᮢ ालय ,
जल संसाधन िवभाग ,
नदी िवकास और गंगा पुनज ᱮ वन ,
क ᱶᮤ ीय भूजल बोड ᭅ , भुजल भवन ,
एनएच IV, फरीदाबाद , ह ᳯ रयाणा- 121001
ᳰ दनांक 27.04.2026
To,
The Regional Director,
Central Ground Water Board
CR Nagpur/ SER Bhubaneswar/ NCCR Raipur ER Kolkata/ NER Guwahati/ WR
Jaipur/ WCR Ahmedabad/ RGI Raipur/ NHR Dharamshala/ UR Dehradun/
NWHR Jammu/ KR Trivandrum/ MER Patna/NCR Bhopal/SWR Bangalore

The Officer-In-Charge
Central Ground Water Board
SUO New Delhi/Ranchi/ Jodhpur/ Shillong/Pune/Agartala/Itanagar/ Belgaum/

The Executive Engineer
Central Ground Water Board
Div. XVII Dharmshala/ Div. XIII Raipur/ Div. XII Bhopal/ Div. V Ranchi Div. X
Bhubaneswar

The Head of Office,
Central Ground Water Board
HQ/CGWA, Faridabad/New Delhi

Sub: Disposal of Representations received against Transfer of Group-A & B
Officers under RTP-2026-regarding.

Sir,

Consequent upon transfer order issued vide CHQ, Faridabad's Office Order
No. 117, 118,119, 122, 126 & 140 of 2026 dated 01.04.2026 & 07.04.2026
respectively, the following Officers have submitted their representations for
consideration of Competent Authority. The Competent Authority has considered
the representations and disposed the cases on merit to merit basis as per the
following:
S.
No.
Name Designation Present
place of
posting
Transfer to Decision of
Competent
Authority
-- -- -- -- -- --
27. Shaktivel Scientist – D
(Hg)
SWR.
Bengaluru
SUO,
Belgavi
Representation
has been
Considered but
TARU LATA
CAT Bangalore
TARU
2026.09.04
15:01:58
+05'30'
LATA

19
OA No.170/00186/2026/CAT/BANGALORE

could not be
Acceded to.
-- -- -- -- -- --

1. Officers mentioned above may please be relieved latest by 30.04.2026
positively and a copy of the Confirmation for the same may please be
communicated to CHQ. Fandabad on 30.04.2026
2. Officers who are engaged in JSJB, NWIC, Atal Jal if not reflected in the above
list, these officers can be relieved after 31.05.2026 positively.
………………
This issues with the approval of Chairman, CGWB for immediate compliance
please.
भवदीय ,
Sd/-
( )
सतबीर ᳲ संह मु ᳎ र
व ᳯ र ᳧ ᮧ शासिनक अिधकारी ”

(6) It would be also beneficial to have a look at Annexure A-9 dated
12.03.2026, wherein the applicant was designated a Nodal Officer from CGWB
to provide technical guidance and handholding support.
“Zaigham Ali Khan, IRAS
Member (Finance)
Government of India
Ministry of Jal Shakti
Department of Water Resources,
River Development & Ganga Rejuvenation
Central Ground Water Board

D.O. No.: 6-14/M(F)/CGWA/JSJB2.0/2026-685 Date: 12.3.2026

Dear Sri Venkatesh,
The sustainable management of groundwater resources is a national
priority. In compliance with the directions of the Secretary, Department of Water
Resources, River Development & Ganga Rejuvenation, Ministry of Jal Shakti, it
has been decided to intensify efforts in 124 water-stressed districts across the
country under Jal Sanchay: Jan Bhagidari (JSJB 2.0).
……………..
Accordingly, a Nodal Officer from CGWB has been nominated to
provide technical guidance and handholding support to the district
administration. The details of the nominated Nodal Officer for the district is as
follows:
Name: Shri.A.Sakthivel
Designation: Scientist-D
TARU LATA
CAT Bangalore
TARU
2026.09.04
15:01:58
+05'30'
LATA

20
OA No.170/00186/2026/CAT/BANGALORE

Contact No: 9442733225
Email id: [email protected]

The District Administration is requested to kindly facilitate engagement of
the nominated Nodal Officer with the District Magistrate's office and the
concerned district-level line departments (such as Minor Irrigation, Rural
Development, Agriculture, etc.). The nominated officer will work closely with the
District Administration to support the preparation and implementation of phase-
wise Artificial Recharge Action Plans, leveraging available scientific inputs such
as Village-wise Feasibility Maps, District Recharge Plans, NAQUIM
recommendations, and Heliborne Survey outputs. The officer will also assist in
estimating the recharge potential from the proposed structures and in assessing
the expected improvement in the Stage of Groundwater Extraction in the
concerned districts. The Artificial Recharge Action Plans will be prepared and
implemented in a phased manner, with priority plans to be finalized by 31
March 2026, the subsequent phase by May 2026, and continued
implementation up to 2028 until the Stage of Extraction in the identified
districts is brought below 90%.
The nominated Nodal Officer has been instructed to keep this office and
the concerned Regional Director informed of the progress. It is expected that
these collective efforts will significantly contribute towards strengthening
groundwater sustainability and ensuring water security in the district.
Best Wishes,
Yours sincerely,
Sd/-
(Zaigham Ali Khan)”

(7) In the light of the above documents (Annexure A-1, 4 and 9), it would
be useful to also have a look at the judgement of the coordinate Mumbai Bench
of CAT in OA No. 464 of 2025 dated 02.07.2025 between Shalini Babulal
Patil vs. Union of India & Ors. which states as follows:
“……………………..
30………….The impugned order of transfer (Annexure-A-1) shows
that it was in the interest of public service. If it was in the interest of
public service and functional requirement, the respondents should
have given the details of the public service for which she was required
to be transferred.
31. In the reply also, they did not explain as to whether there was any
public interest in transferring the applicant. This inference is further
strengthened by the order of rejection of representation (Annexure-
R-6) in which it is stated that her request was not acceded to as the
transfer order was issued in compliance with the directives of this
TARU LATA
CAT Bangalore
TARU
2026.09.04
15:01:58
+05'30'
LATA

21
OA No.170/00186/2026/CAT/BANGALORE

Tribunal. While rejecting the representation, the respondents did not
apply their mind at all. Had there been any public interest in
transferring the applicant the respondents at least should have
mentioned in brief the public interest for which she has been
transferred by the impugned order. It is settled law as held in the case
of Dr. A. Jayachitra v. The Principal Secretary/Member Secretary,
Sports Development Authority of Tamil Nadu in W.P. No. 12252 of
2020, dated 11th December, 2020 (Madras High Court) that merely
mentioning that the transfer was effected for administrative reasons
is not enough. The administrative reasons must be set out by the
transferring authority. On the same lines, it can be said that if the
transfer is in public interest, the public interest must be set out. Since
public interest is not set out, the transfer order cannot be upheld.
……………..
35…….Hence, following order is passed:-
rd
(i) OA is allowed. The transfer order dated 03 June, 2025 is set
aside. ………………”

It is clear from above that in the impugned Orders, no public interest or
administrative grounds have been elaborated upon which is in violation of the
above judgement. Furthermore, it appears from Annexure A-9 that the
continuation of Nodal Officer to provide technical guidance and handholding
support would be in public interest, atleast for some more time.
(8) From the above matrix of facts and circumstances and the judgements
cited by the rival counsels the following conclusions can be drawn:
(i) The applicant has been transferred out on 01.04.2026 on grounds of public
interest along with another 34 officers.
(ii) The transfer of the applicant has been done by the Competent Authority, and
is not in violation of any SOPs / laid down provisions. The applicant had
TARU LATA
CAT Bangalore
TARU
2026.09.04
15:01:58
+05'30'
LATA

22
OA No.170/00186/2026/CAT/BANGALORE

completed his tenure as per the RTP policy and hence, his transfer can be
considered to be as per the extant rules.
(iii) It is seen from Annexures A-5 and 6 dated 27.04.2026 and Annexure A-12
dated 17.06.2026 that request petitions of large number of officers have been
considered and have been granted extension for varying periods. However, in
the absence of mention of any specific instance of discrimination by the learned
counsel for the applicant, it does not appear that there was any legal malafide
involved on the part of the respondents.
(iv) However, there have been some procedural violations and the transfer
is not fully in conformity, with respect to the directions given by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court and the Coordinate Benches of CAT as indicated below:
 All the Orders related to the consideration of the representations of
officers, i.e. Annexures A-4, A-5, A-6 and A-12 (Reference to Annexure
A-11 is excluded as it was issued in 2018, which was long back) are very
cryptic and terse. No reasons or grounds have been given in even one
case, justifying the acceptance or rejection of the requests of the different
officers. It cannot be denied that it would be unreasonable to expect the
respondents to give detailed reasons and grounds in each case. However,
it is expected that in cases of rejection of the request of an individual, at
least some mention of the administrative grounds or public interest,
necessitating the same should be there, in conformity with the
judgements cited above. This has not been done.
TARU LATA
CAT Bangalore
TARU
2026.09.04
15:01:58
+05'30'
LATA

23
OA No.170/00186/2026/CAT/BANGALORE

 It is also seen that no grounds or reasons have been given for the rejection
of the request petition of the applicant. This appears to be incongruent
with the assertion of the learned counsel for the respondents that each
representation pertaining to extension or cancellation of transfer is
examined on the criteria of administrative merits, operational and
functional requirements and public interest, etc. Nothing is mentioned
regarding these criteria in the Orders related to representations / requests
received. This appears to be in violation of the judgements cited supra
which clearly mention that if transfers have been carried out in public
interest or administrative grounds, the same needs to be spelt out, when
representations / requests are received.
(9) The facts and circumstances of this case are very similar, if not exactly
the same to those in the case of Pushkar Naraiah Sharma Vs. Union of the
India and others , Director of School Education Madras and others Vs. O.
Karuppa Thevan and Dr. Shanthikumari and others Vs. Union of India
which deal with the issue of transfers which might adversely impact academic
performance of children of the applicants, particularly daughters. In all these
judgements, the Hon’ble Courts have ordered relief to the extent of retention of
the applicant till the end of the academic year.
(10) It also appears from Annexure A-9 that the continuation of the applicant
as a Nodal Officer from CGWB atleast for some time would definitely serve
public interest. This has not been factored adequately.

TARU LATA
CAT Bangalore
TARU
2026.09.04
15:01:58
+05'30'
LATA

24
OA No.170/00186/2026/CAT/BANGALORE

(11) Hence, the OA is partly allowed. It is hereby ordered:
(i) The impugned orders Annexure A-1 vide bearing No. 14-
12/2025 Vyajanika Sthapana- 1391, dated 01.04.2026 and
Annexure A-4 vide bearing No. 14-12/2025- Vyajanika Sthapana-
1770 dated 27.04.2026 are set aside.
(ii) The respondents should reconsider the request for retention till
the end of the academic year of his daughter. On reconsideration:
(1) A detailed Speaking Order may be issued, cogently indicating
the administrative grounds / public interest, necessitating his
immediate & urgent relief and reporting to his proposed place of
posting, if his request for retention till end of academic year of his
daughter is being rejected.
OR:
(2) Allow the applicant to continue in his present place of posting
(Central Ground Water Board, South Western Region, Bangalore
office) as Scientist D, in conformity with the judgements cited in
Para 8(9) of Conclusion, till the completion of the academic year
of his daughter i.e. upto 31.03.2027. Thereafter, he can be relieved
to join at his transferred place of posting.


TARU LATA
CAT Bangalore
TARU
2026.09.04
15:01:58
+05'30'
LATA

25
OA No.170/00186/2026/CAT/BANGALORE

(iii) If Para 8(11)(ii)(2) of Conclusion is being complied with, the
applicant shall give a clear undertaking to the respondents that he
would get himself relieved on completion of the academic year of
his daughter and report to the transferred place of posting.
(iv) No costs.

Sd/-
(SANTOSH MEHRA)
MEMBER (A)


tl and kr

TARU LATA
CAT Bangalore
TARU
2026.09.04
15:01:58
+05'30'
LATA