Railway staff’s transfer challenge fails; Patna High Court notes petitioners cited simultaneous family illnesses to explain prolonged absence

The petitioners, Assistant Loco Pilots and Loco Pilot Goods working at Muzaffarpur Lobby under Sonpur Division, challenged their transfer from Muzaffarpur Lobby to Mansi or Barauni Lobby, also within Sonpur Division. The transfers followed the Railway Board’s decision to transfer the Muzaffarpur Junction–Samastipur Junction section to Samastipur Division, effective 1 September 2025.

A General Manager (Personnel) letter dated 19 August 2025 provided for the transfer of specified posts and staff to Samastipur Division, but excluded running staff from that arrangement; it also provided a negative-option process for eligible staff. The petitioners argued that, because they had not opted to remain in Sonpur, they should be absorbed in Samastipur, where they alleged vacancies existed. The Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed their application challenging the transfer order dated 20 December 2025, and they then brought this writ petition.

1. Whether the petitioners’ failure to submit an option entitled them to be treated as willing for absorption in Samastipur Division, despite being running staff excluded from the transfer arrangement.

2. Whether the transfer of the petitioners within Sonpur Division was unlawful or arbitrary in light of the alleged vacancies in Samastipur and the Railway administration’s staffing decisions.

The Court relied on the Railway Board notification dated 24 July 2025 and the General Manager (Personnel) letter dated 19 August 2025 governing the transfer of the section, posts and staff between divisions. It construed the letter to exclude running staff from placement under Samastipur Division’s administrative control, and held that the negative-option provision did not apply to them.

The Court also applied the principle that decisions on staff deployment and transfers, including assessment of vacancies and operational requirements, fall within the railway administration’s domain and ordinarily warrant judicial non-interference absent demonstrated illegality or arbitrariness.

No statute or judicial precedent was cited in the judgment.

The Court read the negative-option provision in the context of the preceding clauses, which expressly excluded running staff from transfer to Samastipur Division. It therefore rejected the petitioners’ claim that their failure to submit an option created a right to absorption there; the petitioners had not challenged either the Railway Board notification or the 19 August 2025 letter.

The Court declined to determine the alleged vacancy position, reasoning that staffing levels were subject to operational requirements and annual crew review and were matters for the railway administration. It further found that the petitioners remained under Sonpur Division’s administrative control and had been transferred to comparable posts within that division, without financial or service-related loss, pursuant to administrative exigencies.

It dismissed the writ petition and upheld the Tribunal’s order dated 10 July 2026.