Transfer is an incidence of service; Courts cannot interfere unless mala fide or statutory violation proved.

The applicant, Dharmendra Kumar, an Indian Railway Service of Mechanical Engineer (IRSME) officer holding a Senior Administrative Grade (SAG) post as Chief Motive Power Engineer (Diesel) in South Central Railway (SC Railway), Secunderabad, was transferred to Chittaranjan Locomotive Works (CLW), West Bengal, vide order dated 24.01.2024.

He had joined SC Railway in March 2022, and his transfer occurred before completing two years at the station.

The applicant contended that the transfer violated the Railway Board's Comprehensive Transfer Policy dated 31.08.2015, which stipulates a minimum tenure of two years for a post.

He also highlighted that he had undergone seven transfers in seven years and that other SAG officers were allowed to continue for longer periods in SC Railway.

Furthermore, the applicant submitted a representation for retention, citing his wife's serious health issues, including disc dislocation and suspected malignancy, which he claimed were not considered.

The respondents argued that the transfer was made due to administrative exigencies, with the President's approval, as per Rule 226 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code (IREC), which grants unfettered power to transfer railway servants.

They stated that the General Manager/CLW had requested a suitable SAG/IRSME officer, and the Ministry of Railways' cadre controlling officer decided to transfer the applicant.

The respondents also contested the applicant's claims regarding his wife's health issues, asserting that the medical documents did not support the severity alleged.

At the time of admission on 29.01.2024, the Tribunal granted an interim order staying the transfer.

The respondents also filed MA No. 279/2024 seeking to vacate this interim order.

1. Whether the transfer order dated 24.01.2024 of the applicant from South Central Railway, Secunderabad, to Chittaranjan Locomotive Works, West Bengal, is in violation of the Comprehensive Transfer Policy dated 31.08.2015, issued by the Railway Board.

2. Whether the said transfer order is arbitrary, discriminatory, or made without administrative exigency.

3. Whether the applicant's personal circumstances, specifically his wife's health issues, warrant interference with the transfer order.

The Tribunal applied the principle that transfer is an incidence of service in public employment, as established by the Supreme Court in cases like Shilpi Bose & ors v. State of Bihar & Ors [AIR 1991 SC 532], Union of India & Ors v. S.L. Abbas [1993 AIR 2444], and N.K. Singh V. Union of India [1995 AIR 423].

These precedents affirm that a government servant on a transferable post has no vested right to remain at one place and that courts should not ordinarily interfere with transfer orders unless vitiated by mala fides or statutory violation.

The court also referred to State of UP & Ors v. Gobardhan Lal [AIR 2004 SC 2165], which held that administrative guidelines for transfers do not confer legally enforceable rights and that interference is warranted only for strong and convincing reasons.

S.C. Saxena v. Union of India [2006 (9) SCC 583] was cited to emphasize the duty of an employee to report to the transferred place and then represent personal problems.

Rule 226 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code, Vol. I, regarding the President's power to transfer railway servants in exigencies of service, was also a central point.

The Comprehensive Transfer Policy for Railway Officers dated 31.08.2015 and its Addendum dated 12.12.2018 were considered, particularly clauses related to minimum tenure, transfers against clear vacancies, and consideration for critical illness.

The Tribunal analyzed the applicant's claim of premature transfer, acknowledging the Comprehensive Transfer Policy's provision for a minimum two-year tenure.

However, it noted that the policy also allows for relaxation in administrative exigencies by the cadre controlling officer.

The respondents demonstrated that the transfer was initiated due to a request from the General Manager/CLW for a suitable SAG/IRSME officer, making it an administrative exigency.

The court reinforced that transfer is an incidence of service and that the employer has wide discretion in utilizing its employees, aligning with Supreme Court precedents.

Regarding the applicant's wife's health, the Tribunal found discrepancies between the applicant's claims and the submitted medical reports, noting that the MRI report indicated "Disc desiccation" rather than "Disc dislocation" and the breast test report was "normal finding, probably benign lesion" without further follow-up evidence from the applicant.

This led the court to conclude that the health plea was potentially a "lame excuse" to avoid transfer.

The Tribunal dismissed the applicant's claim of discrimination, as respondents provided details showing that other officers mentioned by the applicant had either been transferred or retired, with only some continuing based on administrative requirements, and emphasized the interchangeable nature of NFHAG and SAG posts.

The court also noted that the applicant had not alleged mala fides against the authorities.

Moreover, the interim order had allowed the applicant to remain at SC Railway for over two years, effectively fulfilling his request to stay "for some time."

The Tribunal stressed that it cannot substitute its decision for that of the competent authorities on administrative needs and exigencies, and that Rule 226 of IREC empowers the respondents to transfer the applicant.

The transfer was deemed to be on administrative grounds and not in violation of the transfer policy or any statutory provision that would legally entitle the applicant to resist it.

Accordingly, the OA was dismissed, the interim order was vacated, and MA No. 279/2024 was disposed of.

No costs were awarded.