A draft HRMS transfer order does not bar withdrawal before formal relieving.

The applicant, a Senior Section Engineer in the TRS Department, Tughlakabad, West Central Railway, submitted a request for mutual transfer through the HRMS module on 13 May 2025.

Before the transfer was finally implemented, his father was diagnosed with post-void urinary retention and shifted to Delhi for treatment, while his wife developed postpartum complications requiring continuing medical care and support.

The applicant, claiming to be the only available male family member, sought withdrawal or cancellation of the mutual-transfer request by representation dated 2 July 2025, followed by further representations and a legal notice.

The respondents rejected his request by order dated 2 September 2025, relying on paragraph 4(IV) of Railway Board’s RBE No. 8/2019, which generally prohibits withdrawal after consent to mutual exchange has been accorded.

The respondents contended that the mutual-transfer application had been approved by the competent authorities, that a draft order had been generated in HRMS, and that the counterpart employee had already joined the applicant’s intended post.

The applicant argued that no final transfer or relieving order had been issued in his case and that he had sought withdrawal before being formally relieved.

The Tribunal had earlier directed maintenance of status quo regarding his place of posting.

Whether the applicant could withdraw his mutual-transfer request after the mutual-transfer arrangement had been approved and a draft order had been generated in HRMS, but before issuance of a final transfer or relieving order concerning him?

Whether the respondents were justified in rejecting the applicant’s withdrawal request by relying on paragraph 4(IV) of RBE No. 8/2019, despite the applicant’s subsequent medical and family circumstances?

Whether the applicant was entitled to continue in his existing post with protection of his lien, seniority, service continuity and consequential benefits?

The Tribunal considered Railway Board’s instructions governing mutual transfers, including the letter dated 21 April 2006 and RBE No. 8/2019, paragraph 4(IV), which ordinarily disallow backtracking or withdrawal after consent for mutual exchange has been accorded.

It also relied on paragraph 10 of the Railway Board’s letter dated 11 January 2019, prescribing model timelines for processing mutual-transfer applications, including forwarding, reciprocal acceptance, issuance of the transfer order and dispatch of service records, collectively indicating a time-bound process of approximately 60 days.

The Tribunal relied on the coordinate-bench decisions in Sandeep Kumar v. Union of India & Ors., O.A. No. 332/00100/2025, Rajeev Kumar Singh & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., O.A. No. 050/00095/2018, Shri Rajendra Kumar v. General Manager, Western Railway & Ors., O.A. No. 422/2019, and Sonvir Singh v. Union of India & Ors., O.A. No. 451/2022.

The governing principle was that although withdrawal is generally impermissible after a mutual-transfer order has been duly issued with the consent of both parties, a request withdrawn before final approval or operative implementation cannot be treated as irrevocably concluded; a draft or administrative processing entry, without a final transfer or relieving order, does not by itself constitute final implementation.

The Tribunal distinguished between a duly issued and implemented mutual-transfer order and a draft order generated in HRMS.

Although the respondents asserted that the mutual-transfer arrangement had been approved and that the counterpart employee had joined, the applicant himself had neither been formally relieved nor transferred before he sought withdrawal on 2 July 2025.

Applying the principles from the coordinate-bench decisions, the Tribunal held that the bar against backtracking could not be mechanically applied where the applicant’s request was still pending in practical terms and no final transfer or relieving order had been issued against him.

The applicant’s subsequent medical and family circumstances provided an additional justification for reconsideration, particularly because the transfer had not yet been finally implemented.

Accordingly, the impugned rejection order was found unsustainable, and the HRMS draft order was held insufficient to render the withdrawal request ineffective.

The Tribunal quashed and set aside the respondents’ order dated 2 September 2025 and directed them to cancel or withdraw the applicant’s mutual-transfer request/application No. MT00057238 dated 13 May 2025.

The respondents were restrained from giving effect to, or taking further action pursuant to, that mutual-transfer arrangement.

The applicant was permitted to continue at his existing place of posting, with his lien, seniority, service continuity and consequential service benefits protected.

No relieving, transfer or posting order was to be issued against him pursuant to the mutual-transfer request.

The directions were to be implemented forthwith and, in any event, within four weeks of receipt of the certified copy of the order.

All pending miscellaneous applications stood disposed of, with no order as to costs.