Transfer orders are not ordinarily interfered with absent mala fides or violation of mandatory rules.

The petitioner, a Coal India executive with 29 years’ service, was promoted from Chief Manager (Mining), E7 grade, to General Manager (Mining), E8 grade, and transferred to North Eastern Coalfield, Assam, by order dated 8 September 2026.

He alleged that the transfer was punitive and motivated by his success in earlier disciplinary proceedings, and contended that the promotion guidelines required consideration of manpower needs and that similarly situated promotees had been retained at their parent subsidiaries.

After submitting a representation against the transfer, he sought its consideration; Coal India opposed the challenge, relying on the petitioner’s long service without an inter-subsidiary transfer and the administrative nature of the posting.

Whether the transfer order should be interdicted on the petitioner’s allegations of mala fides, punitive purpose, or discriminatory application of the promotion guidelines.

Whether the petitioner’s representation seeking retention at his parent subsidiary should be considered and decided by the competent authority.

Transfer is ordinarily an incident of service, and an employee holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain at a particular place; courts should not interfere with a transfer made in the public interest or for administrative reasons unless it violates a mandatory statutory rule or is vitiated by mala fides.

A transfer policy is generally a guideline and does not confer an indefeasible right.

Transfer orders may be interfered with where they are clearly arbitrary or vitiated by mala fides.

The Court also referred to CIL promotion-guideline Clauses 9(a), 9(b) and 9(d), concerning inter-subsidiary transfers and manpower rationalisation.

Applying these principles, the Court noted that the petitioner had served for 29 years without an inter-subsidiary transfer and that the transfer was connected to his promotion to E8 grade and manpower rationalisation.

It treated the allegation that the transfer was retaliatory as involving disputed facts requiring consideration by the competent authority, and found no basis at that stage to interfere with the transfer order.

However, because the representation raised the question whether the petitioner could be retained at his parent subsidiary despite the posting, the Court directed a reasoned determination after a personal hearing.

It directed the competent authority to decide the petitioner’s representation within four weeks of receiving the order, provide a personal hearing, and communicate a reasoned decision within the following week.

The petitioner was directed to join at NEC, Assam within two weeks, without prejudice to his representation; if retention were allowed, he was to be repatriated to the parent subsidiary within one week, while his lien there was to be maintained pending the decision.

No order as to costs was made.