Spell out reasons for employee’s transfer before completion of term: CAT to Govt
Srinagar, Oct 5: The Central Administrative Tribunal has held that an employee’s transfer without completing the tenure of his posting is to be carried out with a proper reason, as without the same action smacks of arbitrariness.
“There is no bar even to transfer an employee before he completes his term of two years, but a frequent transfer has to be reasoned as to what administrative and public interest is sought to be achieved by dislodging an employee without completing the tenure of posting”, a bench of M S Latif Member (Judicial) said
The tribunal said this while dealing with a plea by an employee (head assistant) who, in terms of order No. 39-DLP(J&K) of 2024 dated 16.08.2024, was transferred and posted at the Labour Procurement Office, Rampur till further orders.
After the petitioner joined at her place of posting at Rampur, where she had been working past over a year, yet another order had been issued bearing No. 38-DLP(JK) of 2025 dated 26-09-2025 by which she has been again transferred from Rampur, Baramulla and posted at Bandipora till further orders.
The petitioner is seeking to quash an order dated 26.09.2025 and to allow her to continue at her present place of posting, that is in-charge head assistant looking after the Labour Procurement Officer Rampur, Baramulla, till she completes her tenure of two years.
She also seeks a direction to Nitish Rajora, Director, Defence Labour Procurement Department, UT of J&K and Ladakh, to explain the reasons for passing of the transfer order, when he himself was already transferred in terms of the order dated 16-05-2025.
“It is apt to mention here that the order impugned does not spell out as to what prompted the authority to pass such an order. Undoubtedly, the authority was within its powers, but in absence of reason, the action smacks of arbitrariness, coupled with the fact that the beneficiary – respondent No.4, has also been arrayed as a party respondent in person,” the tribunal said.
The tribunal noted that ordinarily, once the officer was under transfer, that too, when his order of transfer depicted ‘with immediate effect’, he should have restrained himself from passing the transfer order (of the petitioner). “Instead, he should have referred the matter to the administrative department as, prima facie, there is a reason to believe that the action is mala fide”
While the court issued notice to the government for its response to be filed within two weeks, it said:” In the meanwhile, subject to objections of the other side and till next date of hearing, the present place of posting of the petitioner, i.e. at Rampur, Baramulla, shall not be disturbed”.
The tribunal listed the matter for further hearing on consideration on October 30.
