Authorities cannot selectively repatriate similarly situated employees; differential treatment is arbitrary and discriminatory.

The applicant, a Postal Assistant initially posted in Contai Division, was transferred to Kolkata GPO on his own request in 2023.

Following a departmental review which identified excess Postal Assistant posts at Kolkata GPO and a requirement for additional staff in Baruipur Division, 50 posts were abolished at Kolkata GPO and simultaneously created at Baruipur Division.

The applicant was among 11 Postal Assistants from Kolkata GPO temporarily attached to Baruipur Division pursuant to orders dated 8 March 2025 and 12 April 2025, while retaining his lien and pay protection at Kolkata GPO.

He represented on 6 January 2026 seeking termination of the attachment and reversion to Kolkata GPO, but received no response.

During the pendency of the matter, the respondents repatriated several other officials from Baruipur to Kolkata GPO, including officials junior to the applicant, either voluntarily or pursuant to Tribunal orders.

The respondents nevertheless contended that no vacancy existed at Kolkata GPO and that the remaining officials, including the applicant, had to continue at Baruipur.

1. Whether the respondents’ continued temporary attachment of the applicant at Baruipur Division, despite repatriating similarly situated and junior Postal Assistants to Kolkata GPO, was arbitrary and discriminatory.

2. Whether the applicant was entitled to be reverted/repatriated to his parent Division, Kolkata GPO, notwithstanding the respondents’ claim that no vacancy was available there.

The application was brought under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

The Tribunal applied the general principles of equality, non-discrimination, fairness and non-arbitrariness in public employment, holding that an administrative authority cannot adopt a selective or “pick and choose” approach among similarly situated employees without a rational basis.

It further applied the principle that the stated administrative justification of non-availability of vacancies cannot be accepted when the authority’s own subsequent conduct demonstrates that similarly situated, including junior, employees have been accommodated in the parent establishment.

The applicant was the first official in the relevant list of 11 temporarily attached Postal Assistants.

Although the respondents relied on the absence of vacancies at Kolkata GPO, they repatriated Postal Assistants placed at Serial Nos. 3, 5, 8, 9, 10 and 11, including officials junior to the applicant.

The Tribunal therefore found that the respondents had not applied a consistent criterion for reversion and had adopted a discriminatory pick-and-choose method.

Since the respondents’ own actions contradicted their vacancy-based justification, the defence of there being no vacancy at Kolkata GPO was rejected.

The applicant was consequently entitled to treatment consistent with that afforded to the other similarly situated officials.

The application was allowed without any order as to costs.