Name,Post,"Prescribed
tenure as per
transfer
policy
guidelines
dated
29.11.2016.","Posting details
to outlying
segment.",,
Sandeep
Kumar Mishra",JAG-I,"3 years (2
years at the
time of
posting)","3½ years
posted at Daman
Diu & Dadra &
Nagar Haveli
(hard area at the
time of posting).",,
Sravan
Bagaria",JAG-I,2 years,"3 years at
Lakshadweep.",,
Shailendra
Singh Parihar",JAG-I,2 years,"3 years (Approx)
in Andaman &
Nicobar Islands",,
Shingare
Ramchandra
Mahadev",SG,2 years,"3 years in
Lakshadweep.",,
Sl. No.,Union Territories,JAG-I + JAG-II,,SG+EG,
,,"Total identified
posts","Number of
officers presently
working","Total identified
posts","Number of
officers presently
working
1,Delhi,83,50,226,81
2,A&NI,06,01,22,22
3,Lakshadweep,01,02,13,08
4,DNH&DD,00,03,16,11
,Total,90,56,277,122
minimum required tenure, he may be posted again in any outlying segments to complete his remaining period of that tenure.â€",,,,,
xxx xxx xxx,,,,,
(iii) The transfer and postings of DANICS/DANIPS officer would be decided with the approval of the Joint Secretary (UT), MHA.",,,,,
(iv) There shall be a common seniority list (grade-wise). Officers, normally, will be posted to the outlying segments on the basis of seniority; however, their",,,,,
earlier posting shall be taken into account .,,,,,
xxx xxx xxx,,,,,
(vii) Primary consideration for inter-constituent transfer would be to ensure availability of the officers in outlying constituents in adequate numbers.,,,,,
xxx xxx xxx,,,,,
(xiv) Transfer orders once issued after due consideration will be strictly enforced. Disciplinary action may be initiated against those officers who bring,,,,,
extraneous pressures for cancellation of the transfer orders. Moreover, in each case, a record shall be kept in the ACR dossier of the officer concerned to",,,,,
this effect.,,,,,
(xv) Notwithstanding anything contained in the policy, Ministry of Home Affairs has absolute right, if necessary, to transfer or post any officer to any",,,,,
constituent at any time on administrative grounds/in public interest.†[Emphasis added],,,,,
18. It is clear from clause (xv) of the above guidelines that the Ministry of Home Affairs has the absolute right, if necessary, to transfer or post any officer to any",,,,,
constituent at any time on administrative grounds/in public interest. Moreover, it is also the settled proposition of law that a government servant cannot disobey a",,,,,
transfer order by not reporting at the place of posting and then go to the court to ventilate his grievances. It is his duty to first report at the place where he is,,,,,
transferred and then to make a representation as to what may be his personal problems. This tendency of not reporting at the place of posting and indulging in litigation,,,,,
has been seriously viewed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.C. Saxena vs.Union of India [2006 SCC (L&S) 1890].,,,,,
19. In this regard, the learned ASG placed particular reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court inS .L. Abbas (supra), wherein it is observed as",,,,,
under:-,,,,,
“7. Who should be transferred where, is a matter for the appropriate authority to decide. Unless the order of transfer is vitiated by mala fides or is",,,,,
made in violation of any statutory provisions, the Court cannot interfere with it. While ordering the transfer, there is no doubt, the authority must keep in",,,,,
mind the guidelines issued by the Government on the subject. Similarly if a person makes any representation with respect to his transfer, the appropriate",,,,,
authority must consider the same having regard to the exigencies of administration.â€,,,,,
After taking into consideration the earlier judgment of the Apex Court in Bank of India Vs. Jagjit Singh Mehta [1992 (1) SCC 306] and noting that executive,,,,,
instructions/guidelines issued by the Government in this behalf do not have any statutory force, Their Lordships held as under:-",,,,,
“9. Shri Goswami, learned counsel for the respondent relies upon the decision of this Court in Bank of India v. Jagjit Singh Mehta [1992] 1 S.C.C.306",,,,,
rendered by a Bench of which one of us (J.S. Verma J.) was a member. On a perusal of the judgment, we do not think it supports the respondent in any",,,,,
manner. It is observed therein:,,,,,
There can be no doubt that ordinarily and as far as practicable the husband and wife who are both employed should be posted at the same station even if",,,,,
their employers be different. The desirability of such a course is obvious. However, this does not mean that their place of posting should invariably be one",,,,,
of their choice, even though their preference may be taken into account while making the decision in accordance with the administrative needs. In the case",,,,,
of all-India services, the hardship resulting from the two being posted at different stations may be unavoidable at times particularly when they belong to",,,,,
different services and one of them cannot be transferred to the place of the other's posting. While choosing the career and a particular service, the couple",,,,,
have to bear in mind this factor and be prepared to face such a hardship if the administrative needs and transfer policy do not permit the posting of both,,,,,
at one place without sacrifice of the requirements of the administration and needs of other employees. In such a case the couple have to make their choice,,,,,
at the threshold between career prospects and family life. After giving preference to the career prospects by accepting such a promotion or any,,,,,
appointment in an all- India service with the incident of transfer to any place in India, subordinating the need of the couple living together at one station,",,,,,
'they cannot as-of right claim to be relieved of the ordinary incidents of all -India service and avoid transfer to a different place on the ground that-the,,,,,
spouses thereby would-be posted at different places... No doubt the guidelines requires the two spouses to he posted at one place as far as practicable, but",,,,,
that does not enable any spouse to claim such a posting as of right if the departmental authorities do not consider it feasible. The only thing required is,,,,,
that the departmental authorities should consider this aspect along with the exigencies of administration and enable the two spouses to live together at one,,,,,
station if it is possible without any detriment to the administrative needs and the claim of other employees."" (emphasis added)",,,,,
10. The said observations in fact tend to negative the respondent's contentions instead of supporting them. The judgment also does not support the,,,,,
Respondents' contention that if such an order is questioned in a Court or the Tribunal, the authority is obliged to justify the transfer by adducing the",,,,,
reasons therefor. It does not also say that the Court or the Tribunal can quash the order of transfer, if any of the administrative instructions/guidelines are",,,,,
not followed, much less can it be characterized as mala fide for that reason. To reiterate, the order of transfer can be questioned in a court or Tribunal",,,,,
only where it is passed mala fide or where it is made in violation of the statutory provisions.â€,,,,,
20. This Tribunal, in an identical batch of matters titled Sanjeev Ahuja vs. Union of India & Ors [OA No.2732/2016 & batch decided on 05.10.2016] dealt with",,,,,
similar issue, and held that the transfer orders have been issued in true spirit of the transfer guidelines, the aforesaid OAs were dismissed finding no merit. While",,,,,
coming to this conclusion, the Tribunal placed reliance on various precedents of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, including that of S.L. Abbas (supra) and S.C.",,,,,
Saxena (supra).,,,,,
21. Learned counsel for the applicants has mainly raised the following points â€" that the applicants have completed their tenure in outlying segments and now they,,,,,
can be transferred to outlying segments only after completion of requisite tenure as per their station seniority; that DANICS officers can be posted to outlying,,,,,
segments for second time only as JAG-I/II taking into account their station seniority in the aforesaid grades; corresponding/equivalent duty post of the level of an,,,,,
officer, who has been transferred, must exist at the place of transfer; that the respondents have not followed the transfer policy in true spirit while issuing the",,,,,
impugned transfer orders; and no reason for issuing the transfer orders has been given.,,,,,
22. Insofar as the above contentions of the learned counsel for the applicants are concerned, it is the settled proposition of law that a government servant cannot",,,,,
disobey the transfer order by not reporting at the place of posting and then go to the court to ventilate his grievances. It is his duty to first report for work where he is,,,,,
transferred and to make a representation subsequently as to what may be his personal problems, which has admittedly not been done in the instant case. Moreover, no",,,,,
government servant has any legal right to be posted at any particular place since transfer of a particular employee appointed to the class or category of transferable,,,,,
posts from one place to another is not only an incident but a condition of service, necessary too in public interest and efficiency in the public administration.",,,,,
23. It is true that the transfer policy is required to keep in mind the guidelines/instructions issued by the Government on the subject, but such instructions/guidelines",,,,,
having no statutory force are not compulsorily binding on the authority as it is the authority, who, after taking into consideration the administrative exigencies of",,,,,
service, has to decide ‘who should be transferred where’. This view has consistently been held by the courts. It is also provided in para (xv) of the transfer",,,,,
policy of 2016 that notwithstanding anything contained in the policy, Ministry of Home Affairs has absolute right, if necessary, to transfer or post any officer to any",,,,,
constituent at any time on administrative grounds/in public interest. Therefore, it cannot be said that the applicants have been arbitrarily picked up for transfer to",,,,,
outlying segments.,,,,,
24. Insofar as the contention of the applicants regarding continuance of senior offices in Delhi for a longer period vis-Ã -vis the applicants is concerned, the need for",,,,,
transfer of applicants arose as they admittedly have had prior experience of outlying segments and also in view of developmental programmes/schemes/projects being,,,,,
implemented in the UT of Lakshadweep. Hence, the transfer of the applicants can be said to be purely on administrative grounds, keeping in view the transfer policy,",,,,,
which needs no interference from this Tribunal.,,,,,
25. Insofar as the contention regarding there being no reason for transfer is concerned, we are of the view that it is not necessary to give reason in the transfer order",,,,,
itself. However, on query from the Tribunal, Ld. ASG has informed us that the transfer order was issued in exigencies of service/public interest. Learned ASG has",,,,,
also placed on record a communication bearing F.No.12/02/2021-Services dated 18.04.2022 from Director (Services), Government of India, Ladshadweep",,,,,
Administration, Kavaratti Island addressed to the Under Secretary (UTS-II), Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi, which reveals that as many as five posts have",,,,,
been held on additional charge basis due to acute shortage of officers in the UTL Administration, which necessitated transfer of DANICS officers for smooth",,,,,
functioning of the UTL Administration, as three JAG officers posted there have been transferred to other segments. Scan of the aforesaid communication is pasted",,,,,
hereunder:-,,,,,
From the aforesaid communication produced by the respondents, it is amply clear that the transfer of the applicants has been necessitated on account of the",,,,,
developments noted therein, and the transfer cannot be termed as one without reason.",,,,,
26. In view of the above discussion, we find no merit in these OAs and the same are accordingly dismissed. All the interim orders passed in these OAs stand vacated.",,,,,
Pending MAs, if any, are also disposed of.",,,,,
27. There shall be no order as to costs.,,,,,
