Long tenure at one station justified transfer of an all-India service employee; no interference was warranted.

The applicant, a Meteorologist-A at Meteorological Centre, Jaipur, was transferred to Regional Meteorological Centre, Nagpur, by order dated 20 January 2026.

After the Tribunal disposed of his earlier application with liberty to approach it again if his grounds persisted, the respondents deferred his transfer for three months, rejected his further request to remain at Jaipur, and directed him to join at Nagpur.

He challenged those orders, citing the absence of administrative exigency, his elderly mother’s health and his father’s recent death, an alleged “zero transfer policy,” and an asserted transfer to a lower-post arrangement.

The respondents denied that any zero-transfer policy existed and stated that IMD is an all-India transferable service, with transfers made on the recommendations of the relevant committees and approval of the competent authority.

They also stated that the applicant had spent approximately 24 years of his service at Jaipur.

1. Whether the applicant’s transfer from Jaipur to Nagpur, and the subsequent orders requiring him to join there, warranted interference on the grounds raised by him.

2. Whether the applicant established that a “zero transfer policy” applied or that the transfer placed him in a lower-post arrangement.

No statute, regulation, or judicial precedent is cited in the order. The Tribunal proceeded on the stated service principle that IMD is an all-India transferable service and that its officials may be posted anywhere in the country according to public interest and administrative requirements, following the prescribed committee recommendations and competent-authority approval.

The order also reflects the principle that the Tribunal will not interfere with a transfer where the applicant has not substantiated the grounds relied upon to challenge it.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had spent approximately 25 years at Jaipur, had not established the alleged zero-transfer policy, and had not shown that the transfer was to a lower post; the transfer order moved him from MC Jaipur to RMC Nagpur and did not establish that he was being posted in place of the other officer.

It noted that the transfer order covered 26 officers and that the department had considered, but rejected, the applicant’s request.

The Tribunal considered his parents’ circumstances insufficient to justify interference in light of his service history and the all-India transfer liability of the post.

No order as to costs was made.