Transfer of a public servant on administrative grounds does not warrant judicial interference absent violation of statutory rules or proven mala fides.

The applicant, a Senior Manager (Civil) at RITES Limited (a PSU under the Ministry of Railways), challenged a transfer order dated 21.08.2025 shifting him from Delhi to Kaipadar, Odisha

The applicant contended that he had been transferred four times within a 22-month period: first on promotion to Shillong (Dec 2021), then to Thiruvananthapuram (Oct 2023), back to Delhi (Jan 2025) after being declared surplus, and finally the impugned order to Odisha (Aug 2025)

He argued the transfer was frequent, arbitrary, and ignored his status as the sole caregiver for his 80-year-old father with 65% locomotor disability

The respondents maintained that the transfers were necessitated by project-based requirements, completion of specific works (PSC Sleeper Plant), and organizational needs

The applicant had already joined the new post in Odisha and claimed Composite Transfer Grants (CTG) for all previous transfers

1. Whether the frequent transfers of the applicant within a short span of 22 months were arbitrary, punitive, or in violation of the RITES Transfer Policy and DoPT guidelines

2. Whether the applicant, as a "caregiver" to a disabled dependent, possesses a vested legal right to remain at a specific station under DoPT OMs and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016

The court primarily applied the principle that transfer is an incident of service and an employee has no vested right to a choice posting

It relied on Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar, establishing that courts should not interfere with transfers unless they violate mandatory statutory rules or are mala fide

It further cited Union of India v. S.L. Abbas, which held that executive guidelines/instructions do not have statutory force and do not confer indefeasible rights

The court also applied State of M.P. v. S.S. Kourav, noting that the "caregiver" or personal hardship grounds are for the administration to consider via representation, not for judicial review

Finally, it followed N.K. Singh v. Union of India regarding the high threshold for proving mala fides

The Tribunal found that each of the applicant's transfers was linked to valid administrative reasons: the first was on promotion [para. 25]; the second for a specific project in Kerala [para. 26]; the third to Delhi because he was "surplus" staff after project completion [para. 27-28]; and the impugned fourth transfer was driven by a Railway Board directive for sleeper plant inspections in Odisha

The court noted the applicant had accepted previous transfers and claimed CTG payments (totaling ₹2,54,605), signifying acquiescence

Regarding the caregiver argument, the court held that while guidelines suggest sympathy, they do not create a statutory bar against transfer, especially when project-specific expertise is required

The court rejected the plea of mala fides, noting a lack of specific evidence or impleadment of biased officers

Since the applicant had already joined the post in Odisha, the transfer was considered executed

The court answered that frequent transfers necessitated by project completion or staff surplus do not constitute "punitive" action

It further held that personal hardships, including caregiver duties, must be addressed through departmental representations rather than judicial interdiction

All interim applications (MA 1807/2026) were dismissed