Mandatory inclusion of attachment/temporary duty beyond 90 days is essential for calculating "tenure" in transfer orders.

The petitioner, a Constable (GD) in the CRPF posted at Group Centre, Guwahati, challenged an impugned transfer order dated 22.12.2025, which transferred him to the 127-Battalion in West Bengal.

The respondents contended that the petitioner had completed over four years in Assam, exceeding the normal three-year tenure, thus making him eligible for the Summer Chain Transfer (SCT).

The petitioner argued that although his parent unit was in Assam, he had been on attachment or temporary duty in Chhattisgarh for a total of 423 days.

He claimed that under the relevant Standing Orders, these periods must be deducted from his Assam tenure, meaning he had not yet completed the requisite three-year period for transfer eligibility.

1. Whether the period spent on attachment or temporary duty beyond 90 days should be excluded when calculating the "tenure" of a posting for the purpose of Summer Chain Transfers.

2. Whether the petitioner had completed the mandatory three-year tenure in his current station as of the date the transfer order was issued.

The court applied Standing Order 4 of 2022 (as amended on 07.10.2025), specifically Clause 3(d), which defines "Tenure" as the period of continuous posting in a particular station, area, or region.

The rule stipulates that if an official is on attachment or temporary duty from a specific area for more than 90 days, that period is counted toward the tenure of the specific place where the official was actually attached/on duty, rather than the parent station.

Clause 5(A) governs "Summer Chain Transfers" for personnel who have completed the prescribed tenure at a unit as of a specific cut-off date.

The court found that the definition of "tenure" in Clause 3(d) was clear and mandatory.

While the respondents argued the petitioner had been in Assam for four years, the court noted that the petitioner's 423 days of attachment duty in Chhattisgarh (in blocks exceeding 90 days) could not be counted as part of his Assam tenure.

Subtracting the 423 days from the total period, the court calculated that the petitioner had only served roughly 1,038 days in Assam, falling short of the 1,095 days required to complete a three-year tenure.

The court rejected the respondent's argument that eligibility should be calculated from the deferred "marching date" of April or May 2026; instead, it held that eligibility must be determined as of the date the transfer order was actually issued—22.12.2025.

Since the petitioner had not completed the three-year tenure on that date, the order was premature and violated the Standing Order.

The Writ Petition was allowed, and the impugned transfer order dated 22.12.2025, along with the subsequent rejection of the petitioner’s representation dated 10.02.2026, were set aside; however, the court granted the Department liberty to pass fresh transfer orders once the petitioner becomes legally eligible.