Shishir Kumar Behera vs M/O Railways

Headnote AI-drafted · Editorially reviewed

The applicant, a Chief Reservation Supervisor (CRS) working at Cuttack under East Coast Railway, challenged an order dated 05.11.2024 transferring him from Cuttack to Bhadrak as Station Manager from the post of Commercial Superintendent. He contended that the transfer was made with a vindictive attitude, in violation of Railway transfer rules and guidelines, particularly when union elections were ongoing and the applicant was an office bearer of a union. He further alleged that the transfer was engineered to accommodate another employee who had been transferred to Bhadrak earlier, whose transfer was subsequently modified to Cuttack the very next day after the applicant's transfer to Bhadrak.

The applicant had earlier challenged a transfer order dated 20.11.2023 posting him to Jagatsinghpur in O.A. No. 702/2023 and O.A. No. 770/2023, both of which were disposed of by the Tribunal with directions to the respondents. In the final disposal of O.A. No. 770/2023 vide order dated 02.09.2024, the Tribunal had directed the respondents to pass a consequential order cancelling the transfer to Jagatsinghpur within 30 days. Despite this, a fresh transfer order was issued on 05.11.2024 transferring the applicant to Bhadrak.

The applicant relied upon the Supreme Court judgment in T.S.R. Subramanian v. Union of India and the consequential Office Memorandum issued by DoP&T dated 09.04.2014 requiring every Ministry to constitute a committee to consider transfer and posting of employees, alleging that the transfer order was passed in breach of these guidelines and was an arbitrary exercise of power by higher authorities.

Catchwords: transfer arbitrary transfer railway employee service law vindictive transfer union office bearer transfer guidelines DoP&T guidelines Commercial Superintendent Chief Reservation Supervisor East Coast Railway transfer rules violation