Transfer is an Incidence of Service; Guidelines are Executive and Do Not Confer Indefeasible Right.

The applicant, Rajendra Kumar Sharma, filed an Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal's Act, 1985, seeking to quash the relieving order dated 15.02.2023 (Annexure A-1) and the transfer order dated 08.01.2021 (Annexure A-2).

The transfer moved him from GE (E) Mathura to GE (AF) Chiloda.

The applicant contended that the transfer was based on him being declared surplus, which he disputed, asserting he was not actually surplus.

The respondents argued that there was an overall deficiency of 58% in CMD posts at the Command level and that the applicant had been posted at the same station since 06.10.1989.

They also noted that the applicant was transferred to a station of his first choice.

Both parties relied on the guidelines dated 18.02.2018 (Annexure A-12).

The applicant is due to retire on 31.10.2027 and invoked the "Age Factor" clause from the guidelines.

An interim stay prevented the enforcement of the impugned orders.

1. Whether the impugned transfer and relieving orders are void on the ground that the applicant was not genuinely surplus.

2. Whether the transfer order violates the "Age Factor" clause of the guidelines dated 18.02.2018, given the applicant's proximity to retirement.

3. Whether the applicant is entitled to a "last leg posting" at his current station despite the guidelines prohibiting such postings.

4. Whether the transfer order is an unwarranted interference with personal convenience, outweighing public interest.

The Tribunal applied the Administrative Tribunal's Act, 1985.

Executive guidelines dated 18.02.2018 (Annexure A-12).

Specific clauses from the guidelines included "5. Definitions and Modalities of various types of postings" particularly sub-clause (B)(ii)(f) for "Last leg posting," (E)(iii) for "Posting on Surplus / Deficiency," and (G) for "Critical Deficiency & Critical Surplus."

It also considered "6. Other Modalities" specifically sub-clause (xi) for "Age Factor."

A key legal principle applied was that transfer is an incidence of service, and the scope of judicial review is limited unless the order is vitiated by mala fides or statutory violation.

The Tribunal also emphasized that executive guidelines do not confer indefeasible rights.

Public interest is paramount over personal convenience.

The Tribunal found no merit in the applicant's claim that he was not surplus, noting the overall deficiency of CMD posts at the Command level.

The "Age Factor" clause was deemed non-mandatory due to the use of "generally," and the relieving order was passed more than four and a half years before the applicant's retirement, meaning it was not "on the verge of his retirement."

The interim stay allowed him to continue at his current posting, but for the order, the transfer would have been implemented well before.

The guidelines explicitly prohibit "last leg posting in the same station in which he is working," and the applicant had been at the current station for over three decades.

The Tribunal reiterated that transfer is an incidence of service, and judicial interference is limited unless mala fides or statutory violations are present, neither of which were established.

The guidelines being executive in nature do not confer an indefeasible right.

The Tribunal emphasized that the efficient functioning of the organization and public interest are paramount, superseding an employee's personal convenience.

It held that the transfer and relieving orders were not hit by the "Age Factor" clause as the word "generally" makes it non-mandatory and the relieving order was issued well in advance of retirement.

Furthermore, the applicant's request for a last leg posting at his current station was explicitly prohibited by the guidelines.

The Tribunal found no grounds for judicial interference, reiterating that transfer is an incidence of service and that public interest outweighs personal convenience.

The pending MAs stood closed.