Railway authorities cannot indefinitely withhold relieving after accepting an inter-Railway transfer and issuing an NOC.

The applicant, a Track Maintainer-III in Ahmedabad Division, Western Railway, sought Inter-Railway Own Request Transfer to Moradabad Division, Northern Railway, on spouse ground, as his wife was serving as a Government teacher in the Moradabad region.

The application was submitted through HRMS on 12.12.2023. Moradabad Division issued an NOC dated 25.08.2025, placing the applicant at priority No. 1 and making the NOC valid up to 24.08.2026.

The transfer proposal was processed and assigned Proposal ID No. 8156, but the applicant was not relieved by Ahmedabad Division. He submitted representations dated 11.03.2026 and 23.03.2026 seeking relieving.

The respondents produced cadre figures showing an overall shortage in the Engineering cadre, but also showed 1,032 employees against 923 sanctioned posts in the TM-III category, i.e., an excess of 109 employees.

Whether, after the applicant’s Inter-Railway transfer request had been processed, the receiving Railway had issued an NOC, and the applicant stood at priority No. 1, the parent Railway could indefinitely withhold his relieving on general grounds of administrative exigency, manpower shortage or safety requirements.

Whether the general principle that an employee has no vested right to seek transfer or remain posted at a particular place applied to a case concerning implementation of an already processed and accepted Inter-Railway transfer request.

Whether the respondents’ stated manpower shortage and pending approval of the priority/legacy constituted a legally sustainable justification for not relieving the applicant within the validity of the NOC.

The Tribunal applied para 226 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code, under which a Railway servant ordinarily has no claim as of right to transfer to another Railway; however, this general principle does not authorise the administration to disregard specific Railway Board instructions governing processed Inter-Railway transfers.

RBE No. 170/2005 states that inter-zonal transfer requests made on hardship grounds should not be withheld merely because vacancies exist and that steps should instead be taken to fill vacancies; RBE No. 203/2019 requires timely relieving and reasons for delay to be placed before designated officers; and RBE No. 22/2023 and subsequent instructions concern feasibility, manpower and operational requirements.

The Tribunal followed Anirudh Prasad v. Union of India, OA No. 443/2021, as affirmed by the Gujarat High Court in SCA No. 6066/2022, holding that once the Railway has issued an NOC in accordance with its rules, it cannot indefinitely evade responsibility for implementing it.

The general transfer principles in S.L. Abbas, S.S. Kourav, Shilpi Bose, Atmaram Sungomal Poshani, Deepak Niranjan Nath Pandit and Namrata Verma were distinguished as applying primarily to challenges against employer-directed transfers, not to non-implementation of an already processed employee-requested transfer.

The Tribunal held that the applicant was not seeking judicial interference with an employer-initiated transfer or claiming a right to a posting of his choice. His request had already been processed, the receiving Railway had issued an NOC, and he stood at priority No. 1.

Therefore, the respondents were required to assess feasibility objectively and provide cogent reasons for withholding relieving. Their reliance on administrative exigency was found insufficient because the cadre material showed an overall shortage but an excess of 109 employees in the applicant’s specific TM-III category.

The respondents also failed to establish that the applicant’s particular post was critically manned or that his relieving would make operations impossible.

The pending approval of the priority/legacy and the assertion that he would be relieved “whenever feasible” did not amount to a reasoned decision and could not justify indefinite delay.

The Tribunal further treated the spouse-ground nature of the request as a relevant welfare consideration consistent with the object of facilitating co-location of spouses.

The DRM, Moradabad Division, Northern Railway, was directed to keep the post vacant under the NOC until the applicant joined.

The applicant was held entitled to consequential benefits in accordance with the rules.

There was no order as to costs, and pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were disposed of.