BSNL JTOs’ TTA Service Counted for Long-Stay Transfers; Chennai CAT Rejects Challenge by Employees With 23 Years at Same Station

The applicants were appointed as Telecom Technical Assistants (TTAs) in the non-executive cadre and later promoted to Junior Telecom Officer (JTO) through the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE).

BSNL transferred them in July 2025, counting their TTA service towards their total stay at the station under Clause 12(i) of its Transfer Policy dated 7 May 2008.

They challenged that calculation and the transfer orders, relying on a 31 March 2017 clarification concerning employees who entered the executive cadre after technical resignation.

BSNL maintained that the clarification applied to direct recruits, not promotees, whose service was continuous.

The applicants had also submitted representations against the transfers

Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 provides the basis for an application to the Tribunal.

Clause 12(i) of BSNL’s Transfer Policy provides that an executive’s total stay is counted including service in previous cadres or grades, irrespective of category; Clause 7 states that employees are liable to transfer in the company’s interests.

The Tribunal applied the principle that transfer is an incident of service and that courts generally do not interfere absent mala fides, arbitrariness or violation of statutory rules, relying on Union of India v. S.L. Abbas, (1993) 4 SCC 357, S.K. Naushad Rahman v. Union of India, (2022) 12 SCC 1, and Somesh Tiwari v. Union of India, (2009) 2 SCC 592.

It also referred to the Ernakulam Bench’s decision in OA 675/2021, which upheld the relevant transfer-policy provision.

The Tribunal stated that a transfer policy may distinguish between employees by mode of recruitment where the applicable policy validly provides for that distinction.

The Tribunal found that the applicants’ service in the same SSA was continuous and that they had entered the executive cadre by promotion, not by the direct-recruitment route involving technical resignation addressed by the 2017 clarification.

It therefore held that the clarification did not exclude their earlier service from the tenure calculation.

The Tribunal further found that Clause 12(i) was not contrary to statutory service rules, was uniformly applied to the relevant employees, and had not been shown to be mala fide or intended to victimise the applicants.

It also considered the applicants’ long service at their stations and found no demonstrated illegality in applying the policy to them.

The Original Application was dismissed, with no order as to costs.