Railways cannot indefinitely withhold inter-railway relief on staff-shortage grounds after issuing NOCs.

The applicants, Railway employees serving in Palakkad Division in various categories, sought one-way inter-Railway transfers to divisions near their home States. Their applications were forwarded through HRMS, and the receiving divisions issued NOCs; however, the applicants were not relieved, principally because of staff shortages in Palakkad Division.

The respondents maintained that several applicants worked in safety-related categories and could be relieved only when staffing levels permitted; they also relied on the limited validity of NOCs and the need to confirm vacancies in the receiving divisions.

The Tribunal heard and disposed of the connected applications by a common order.

1. Whether the applicants could be kept from being relieved indefinitely for inter-Railway transfer on the ground of staff shortages, despite their applications having been forwarded and NOCs having been issued by the receiving divisions.

2. Whether the applicants’ transfer requests remained subject to confirmation of vacancies in the receiving divisions before individual relief orders were issued.

Railway Board Circular RBE No. 153/2019 requires a parent Railway, before forwarding an inter-Railway transfer request for an NOC, to assess whether the employee can reasonably be relieved if the receiving Railway accepts the request, taking account of anticipated recruitment and other staffing changes.

The Tribunal treated that requirement as relevant to the parent division’s responsibility to plan for the transfer and held that, once an application had been forwarded and an NOC obtained, staff shortage could not justify keeping the request on hold indefinitely.

The respondents relied on RBE No. 73/2024 concerning the one-year validity of NOCs and on *S.K. Nausad Rahaman v. Union of India*, *Union of India v. S.L. Abbas* and *Namrata Verma v. State of Uttar Pradesh* in support of administrative discretion over transfers.

The Tribunal distinguished the routine-transfer principles in *S.L. Abbas*, reasoning that these applications concerned implementation of a transfer process permitted and encouraged by Railway policy, rather than a claim to an ordinary transfer as of right.

It also referred to its earlier decisions, including O.A. Nos. 444/2014, 321/2014, 264/2014, 576/2017 and 277/2017, as supporting the view that staff shortage alone did not justify refusal to relieve an employee holding an NOC.

The Tribunal considered that the parent division had forwarded the applicants’ requests under a policy requiring prior assessment of the feasibility of relief. It therefore held that the administration should anticipate the consequences of transfers and take steps to address staffing needs, rather than leave employees’ requests pending indefinitely after receiving NOCs.

Although it accepted that releasing many employees in safety categories at once could prejudice train operations and public interest, it concluded that this concern did not warrant indefinite withholding of relief. A time-bound direction would balance the employees’ interests with operational requirements; confirmation of vacancies in the receiving divisions would address the fact that the NOCs had been issued earlier.

Before issuing individual relief orders, the respondents must reconfirm the existence of vacancies in the respective receiving divisions. The interim orders were made absolute; there was no order as to costs.