Transfer guidelines do not bar subsequent farther transfer after same-station promotional posting.

The petitioners, comprising the All India Loco Running Staff Association and individual loco pilots, were initially appointed as Assistant Loco Pilots and were promoted as Loco Pilot Goods by order dated 4 December 2025.

They were subsequently transferred to distant places.

Contending that the transfers violated the Railway guidelines dated 10 October 2024—particularly Clause 3(iii)(d), which requires senior employees to be considered for nearer stations and juniors for farther stations—the petitioners sought interim stay of the transfer orders before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur.

The Tribunal rejected their interim application in MA No. 777/2026 arising from OA No. 549/2026.

The petitioners challenged that order before the High Court.

Whether the Tribunal erred in refusing interim protection against the petitioners’ transfer orders on the ground that the transfers violated Clause 3(iii)(d) of the Railway guidelines dated 10 October 2024.

Whether the petitioners’ transfers, made after their promotion and subsequent retention at the same station, were contrary to the applicable transfer guidelines.

The Court applied Clause 3(iii) of the Railway guidelines dated 10 October 2024 governing transfers consequent upon promotion.

Under Clause 3(iii)(d), while posting residuary staff, senior employees should be considered for nearer stations, sheds or depots to their existing place of posting, according to seniority, while juniors may be posted to farther stations, unless an employee seeks a particular station.

The Court also applied the general principle that interference with administrative transfer orders at the interim stage is not warranted where the transfer is shown to have been made in the ordinary course and is not demonstrably contrary to the applicable guidelines.

The petitioners argued that, despite being seniors, they had been transferred to farther places while juniors were retained at nearer stations, contrary to Clause 3(iii)(d).

The Railways, however, contended that the petitioners had initially been accommodated at the same station upon promotion and were transferred to farther places only subsequently, in the usual course.

The Court accepted the Railways’ submission and found that the factual premise underlying the petitioners’ challenge was incorrect: the impugned transfers were not the immediate consequence of promotion requiring application of the preferential posting mechanism under Clause 3(iii)(d), since the petitioners had already been retained at their existing station after promotion.

Accordingly, the Tribunal had committed no error in declining interim protection.

It held that the petitioners’ subsequent transfers to farther places, after their retention at the same station upon promotion, did not justify interim protection on the basis of Clause 3(iii)(d) of the guidelines.

The Tribunal was directed to endeavour to dispose of the original application expeditiously, while avoiding unnecessary or prolonged adjournments and affording the parties an opportunity of hearing.