Facts
The applicant, an Multi-Tasking Staff (MTS) employee, was initially posted in Mumbai in 2014
Source reference: p. 2, para 3In 2019, she applied for an inter-charge transfer to Uttar Pradesh (West) under the prevailing policy (OM dated 14.05.1990), but a No Objection Certificate (NOC) was not issued
Source reference: p. 4, para 6Subsequently, the respondents updated their transfer policies via OMs dated 12.02.2020 and 22.12.2020, withdrawing the 1990 policy and introducing transfers on a "loan basis"
Source reference: p. 6, para 9; p. 7, para 10The applicant applied afresh under the new policy, was transferred to Kanpur/Agra on a loan basis in 2022 for three years, and received an extension until 30.04.2026
Source reference: p. 4, para 6On 06.02.2026, the respondents issued an order (the impugned order) directing her to be relieved and return to her parent cadre in Mumbai upon the expiry of her loan tenure
Source reference: p. 1, para 2The applicant challenged this, seeking to continue in her current posting by invoking her 2019 request and various judicial precedents
Source reference: p. 3, para 5Issues
1. Whether the applicant's 2019 request for inter-charge transfer remained valid and enforceable after she opted for and accepted a transfer under the 2020 "loan basis" policy
Source reference: p. 9, para 112. Whether the impugned order dated 06.02.2026, directing the applicant to return to her parent cadre, was legally sustainable
Source reference: p. 10, para 12Law Applied
Office Memorandum (OM) dated 14.05.1990, which governed inter-charge transfers on compassionate grounds
Source reference: p. 5, para 8OM dated 12.02.2020, which restricted such transfers to specific relaxation cases for applications received by 31.12.2019
Source reference: p. 6, para 9OM dated 22.12.2020, which officially withdrew the 1990 policy and established "Transfer on Loan basis" with a maximum tenure of five years (3+2) and a mandatory return to the parent cadre
Source reference: p. 7-8, para 10The court also examined the principle of distinction in facts regarding precedents such as Ajay Rani v. Union of India and Rakesh Bahadur v. Union of India
Source reference: p. 9, para 11Reasoning
The court analyzed the applicant’s contention that her 2019 transfer request should be reconsidered based on precedents where other Benches of the Tribunal directed consideration of pre-2020 applications
Source reference: p. 3-4, para 5However, the court distinguished those cases from the present facts, noting that in the cited precedents, the applicants had not transitioned to the new policy
Source reference: p. 9, para 11In this case, because the applicant’s 2019 request failed to secure an NOC, she proactively moved a fresh application under the OM dated 12.02.2020 for a "loan basis" transfer
Source reference: p. 4, para 6By accepting the benefits and terms of the loan transfer—specifically the time-bound nature of the posting—the court held that her 2019 application had become infructuous
Source reference: p. 10, para 11The court reasoned that an employee who chooses to join a post under a specific, time-limited policy cannot later revert to a defunct policy to claim a permanent posting once the agreed-upon tenure expires
Source reference: p. 10, para 11Holding
The Tribunal dismissed the Original Application at the admission stage, holding that the applicant was not entitled to any further extension or a permanent transfer based on her 2019 request
The court affirmed that the 2019 application did not survive her subsequent acceptance of the loan-basis transfer terms
Source reference: p. 4, para 6; p. 10, para 11The impugned order dated 06.02.2026 remains intact, and the applicant is required to join her parent cadre in Mumbai by 30.04.2026
Source reference: p. 10, para 12No costs were awarded
Source reference: p. 10, para 13Original Court PDF
Sarita singhvsM/O FINANCE
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in