Transfer-tenure guidelines do not confer an indefeasible right to remain posted for four years.

The applicant, a Senior Section Engineer (Works) with a cardiac condition and pacemaker, challenged his transfers from Sini to Tata under orders dated 14 and 17 July 2023, and subsequently from Tata to Bara Jamda (BJMD) under an order dated 27 December 2023.

He contended that the transfers were premature, contrary to transfer guidelines, discriminatory, and detrimental to his health.

In an earlier application, the Tribunal had directed consideration of his representation; the respondents stated that a reasoned order was passed on 6 October 2023.

The parties disputed whether the applicant had properly taken over charge at Tata and whether the respondents had facilitated the handover.

The respondents maintained that the transfers were made on administrative grounds after consideration by the Transfer Management Committee and approval by the competent authority.

1. Whether the challenged transfer orders were liable to be set aside as arbitrary, premature, discriminatory, medically impermissible, or otherwise unlawful

2. Whether the respondents failed to comply with the Tribunal’s earlier direction to consider the applicant’s representation and whether they prevented him from taking over charge at Tata

The Tribunal applied the principle that transfer is ordinarily an administrative matter and judicial interference is warranted where an order is contrary to a statutory rule, made by an incompetent authority, or vitiated by mala fides or another legally sustainable ground.

It treated the Vigilance guidelines and Master Circular No. 24 concerning periodic transfers as general administrative guidance, not as creating an indefeasible right to remain posted at a station until completion of a specified tenure.

No particular statute or judicial precedent was identified as the basis of the decision.

The Tribunal found that the respondents had explained the transfers as administrative decisions considered by the Transfer Management Committee and approved by the competent authority, and that the applicant had not produced sufficient material showing mala fides, lack of authority, or breach of a statutory rule.

The guidelines relied on did not confer a right to remain at Sini for a fixed period, and the allegation that other employees were treated more favourably was unsupported by evidence establishing that they were similarly situated in all material respects.

Although the applicant’s cardiac condition was acknowledged, there was no evidence that a competent Railway medical authority had declared him unfit for the transferred post; the Tribunal also noted the respondents’ position that medical circumstances had been considered.

The evidence concerning the handover at Tata was disputed, and the Tribunal was not satisfied that the respondents had deliberately withheld charge.

It further accepted that the earlier direction had been complied with through the reasoned order of 6 October 2023.

It dismissed the Original Application, disposed of any pending miscellaneous application, and made no order as to costs.