Near-retirement employees require meaningful exemption consideration; retention may be ordered absent specific administrative impediment.

The applicant, a Superintendent in the CGST and Central Excise Department posted at Allahabad, was transferred to the CGST and Central Excise Commissionerate, Kanpur/Farrukhabad Division pursuant to transfer/posting orders dated 12.05.2026 and 21.05.2026.

He was due to retire on 30.06.2027, leaving approximately thirteen months of service at the time of transfer.

He challenged the transfer in O.A. No. 590/2026, which was disposed of on 26.05.2026 with directions to the respondents to consider his representation dated 15.05.2026 in light of the Zonal Transfer Policy, 2020, the DoP&T O.M. dated 30.09.2009, the decision in O.A. No. 554/2026, and the possibility of retaining him at Allahabad, subject to administrative exigencies

The competent authority rejected his representation by a speaking order dated 21.07.2026, following which he was relieved on 22.07.2026

The applicant challenged these orders, relying principally on Clause 12(iv) of the Zonal Transfer Policy, his impending retirement, his wife’s government employment at Prayagraj, and his responsibility towards his aged parents

The respondents defended the transfer as part of the 2026 Annual General Transfer exercise involving more than 500 officers and contended that Clause 12(iv) did not confer an absolute right to retention

1. Whether the applicant’s transfer was liable to be interfered with on the ground that the competent authority failed to meaningfully consider his impending superannuation and his request for exemption under Clause 12(iv) of the Zonal Transfer Policy, 2020

2. Whether the speaking order dated 21.07.2026 adequately complied with the Tribunal’s earlier direction to consider the applicant’s representation, including the decision in O.A. No. 554/2026 and the possibility of retaining him at Allahabad

3. Whether the applicant was entitled, in the peculiar facts of the case, to remain posted at Allahabad until his superannuation notwithstanding the general Annual General Transfer exercise

Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 provides the jurisdictional basis for challenging service-related orders before the Tribunal

Transfer is ordinarily an incidence of service, and an employee has no vested right to remain posted at a particular place; judicial review is generally limited to cases involving mala fides, violation of statutory rules, arbitrariness, or failure to consider a relevant policy factor

Clause 12(iv) of the Zonal Transfer Policy, 2020 contemplates consideration of exemption from transfer for an employee having less than three years of service remaining before retirement, subject to factors such as vacancy and administrative convenience; it does not create an absolute right of retention, but requires meaningful consideration of the employee’s impending retirement

The DoP&T O.M. dated 30.09.2009 concerning posting of spouses at the same station is directory and does not confer an absolute right to a particular posting, though the spouse factor remains relevant

The Tribunal also considered the principles governing transfer laid down in State of Punjab v. Joginder Singh, Varadha Rao v. State of Karnataka and Union of India v. S.L. Abbas, namely that administrative transfer decisions ordinarily warrant judicial deference absent recognised grounds for interference

A prior judicial decision relied upon pursuant to a specific direction must be meaningfully considered and cannot be rejected merely because the department proposes to challenge it

The Tribunal accepted that the applicant had no general or vested right to remain at Allahabad and that his transfer formed part of a bona fide large-scale administrative exercise rather than an individual or discriminatory action

However, the general transfer criteria did not exhaust the separate obligation under Clause 12(iv) to consider exemption for an employee nearing retirement

Although the speaking order referred to the policy, the Annual General Transfer exercise and administrative requirements, it did not identify with sufficient specificity why the applicant could not be retained at Allahabad for the limited period of approximately thirteen months remaining before retirement, or what concrete administrative prejudice such retention would cause

The authority also failed to meaningfully distinguish the decision in O.A. No. 554/2026; merely stating that the department had not accepted or intended to challenge that decision did not satisfy the earlier direction requiring its consideration

The applicant’s wife’s posting at Prayagraj was a relevant, though non-conclusive, circumstance, while the claim concerning his parents was insufficient by itself because adequate supporting medical material had not been produced

On the cumulative facts—particularly the applicant’s imminent superannuation, the specific policy provision, the earlier Tribunal direction and the absence of a demonstrated compelling administrative necessity—the balance favoured retention at Allahabad

It quashed the speaking order dated 21.07.2026, the transfer/posting orders dated 12.05.2026 and 21.05.2026 insofar as they concerned the applicant, and the consequential relieving order dated 22.07.2026

The respondents were directed to permit the applicant to continue at Allahabad until his date of superannuation, 30.06.2027, and not to give effect to the impugned transfer or relieving orders

The Tribunal clarified that the relief was confined to the peculiar and cumulative facts of the case and that Clause 12(iv) did not confer an automatic or absolute right of retention upon every employee nearing retirement

There was no order as to costs.