Administrative restructuring of a staff establishment without affecting service conditions or seniority does not warrant judicial interference.

The applicants (18 in total) are Track Maintainers posted at the Jamalpur Workshop, Bihar. Historically, they and the "Permanent Way" assets were under the administrative control of the Chief Works Manager (CWM), Jamalpur

By orders dated 31.01.2025 and 24.09.2025, the respondents transferred the administrative control of the applicants’ establishment and assets to the Assistant Divisional Engineer (ADEN), Jamalpur, under the Malda Division

The applicants challenged this change in control, arguing it violated transfer norms and requesting a stay or a transfer to other departments under CWM, Jamalpur

A previous challenge led to a reasoned order by the respondents on 24.09.2025 rejecting their representation, which is the subject of the current O.A.

1. Whether the administrative decision to transfer the control of an establishment from one division to another violates the service rights of the employees or requires their consent

2. Whether the provisions of Master Circular No. 24 regarding employee transfers are applicable to a change in administrative control where the employees remain in the same location and post

The Tribunal applied the principle that the control of an establishment is a matter of administrative policy and executive domain, aimed at enhancing administrative efficiency

Railway Board Master Circular No. 24, which governs the transfer of Railway employees on "own request" or "mutual transfer" bases

administrative decisions cannot be interfered with unless they violate statutory rules or adversely affect the legal rights or service conditions (such as seniority or pay) of the employees

The Tribunal observed that the applicants were not being physically transferred or moved from their current posts; they continue to perform the same duties at the same location inside Jamalpur Workshop

The court noted the respondents' assurance that a separate cadre and bill unit had been created for these staff members under the Malda Division, ensuring their seniority and promotion prospects remain protected

Consequently, the Tribunal found that the applicants failed to show any prejudice or loss of service benefits

Regarding Master Circular No. 24, the Tribunal held it was inapplicable because that circular deals with individual transfers (often requested by employees), whereas the present case involves an administrative restructuring

The court emphasized that it is not the prerogative of an individual employee to question policy decisions made for better supervision of assets unless a legal lacuna or violation of a statutory rule is proven

The Tribunal dismissed the Original Application (O.A. 1754/2025) and the Miscellaneous Application (M.A. 217/2026) for interim relief. No costs were awarded.