Transfer is upheld where no evidence shows it was made to accommodate another employee.

The applicant, a railway employee serving as a Key Man in Gang No. 15 at Agori Khas Railway Station, challenged an order dated 14 August 2021 transferring him to Gang No. 9 at Khairahi Station, approximately 45 km away

He alleged that the transfer was made to accommodate another employee, Sri Ram Deo, and sought restoration to his former posting

The transfer followed an earlier Tribunal proceeding directing the respondents to decide the applicant’s representation concerning his promotion-related grievance; the judgment refers inconsistently to that proceeding as OA No. 438 of 2021 and OA No. 483 of 2021

The respondents maintained that the transfer caused no hardship and that the applicant had joined at the new posting

1. Whether the applicant’s transfer from Gang No. 15 to Gang No. 9 was liable to be quashed on the ground that it was made to accommodate another employee

2. Whether the applicant was entitled to an order restoring him to his former posting and consequential benefits

The Tribunal cited no statute, regulation, or precedent as the basis of its decision

The applicant invoked the proposition that an employee cannot be transferred merely to accommodate another person, but the Tribunal did not expressly adopt or elaborate that proposition as a governing legal rule

Its decision turned on the absence of conclusive oral or documentary evidence supporting the alleged accommodation, together with the distance between the postings and the applicant’s having joined at the new station

The Tribunal found no conclusive evidence that the applicant had been transferred to accommodate Sri Ram Deo

It also noted that the new posting was approximately 45 km from the former one and that the applicant had already joined there

On those facts, it concluded that the challenge lacked merit and declined to interfere with the transfer order

The associated miscellaneous applications were disposed of, with no order as to costs