Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur: In an application filed by the applicant seeking reliefs regarding the cancellation of his ‘Inter Railway Request Transfer’ (IRRT) application, which had previously been approved but was later treated as cancelled by the respondents following a change in policy, a Coram of Akhil Kumar Srivastava (Judicial Member) and Mallika Arya (Administrative Member) allowed the application and directed the respondents to restore the application for IRRT of the applicant to its original position and to consider for IRRT from SECR to NCR Jhansi and shall relieve the applicant within 15 days of receipt of a copy of this order.
The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Loco Pilot (ALP) on 23-12-2013 in the Bilaspur Division of the Southeast Central Railway (SECR). On 06-09-2014, less than a year into service, he submitted an IRRT application seeking transfer from SECR to the North Central Railway (NCR), Jhansi Division, on personal grounds. This application was processed, and No Objection Certificate (NOC) was issued, and the North Central Railway issued a list dated 09-08-2015, approving several such IRRTs, including the applicant’s applications based on bottom seniority. The petitioner’s name was placed at serial number 16 in this approved list, and the SECR General Manager (Personnel) was instructed to relieve the employee for posting in NCR.
Meanwhile, the Railway Board issued a Comprehensive Transfer Policy dated 31-08-2015 which, inter alia, stated that inter-railway transfers for non-gazetted employees would only be considered after five years of service. However, crucially, Clause (xvii) of this policy clarified that the policy would apply only to fresh transfer of orders made after its issuance. Despite this, the applicant was not relieved from his parent’s zone.
In April 2019, the petitioner again applied for an IRRT after completing five years of service, and his name was placed at serial number 252 on the fresh priority list. However, before the transfer could be processed, the Railway Board issued another policy via RBE No. 28/2022 dated 10-03-2022, enhancing the minimum service required for IRRT from five to ten years. Citing this new policy, SECR issued a communication dated 23-03-2022 treating all pending IRRT cases of employees with less than 10 years of service as cancelled including the applicant’s.
The petitioner made repeated representations on 05-04-2022 and 07-04-2022, arguing that the 2022 policy cannot operate retrospectively to cancel a transfer request that had already been approved years ago. These representations yielded no relief.
Thus, the present application was filed seeking to call entire records concerning his IRRT application, declaration that the policy dated 10-03-2022 is prospective and not applicable to his IRRT, quashing of SECR’s communication dated 23-03-2022 cancelling his approved IRRT application, direction to restore and revalidate his IRRT application and NOC, and relieve him accordingly, direction that the IRRT application not to be treated as cancelled under the new policy or any other relief deemed fit along with the costs of the petition.
The Tribunal noted that the Railway Board letter dated 31-08-2015 contained administrative instructions and was expressly prospective in nature, as reflected in Clause (xvii), which stated that all fresh transfer orders would be governed by it. Similarly, the instructions under RBE No. 28/2022 dated 10-03-2022 also operated prospectively. Estt. Rule 92/2022 itself acknowledged in Para 6 that the enhanced 10-year requirement would not apply where approval or consent had already been obtained from the concerned railway division.
The Tribunal observed that since the applicant’s original IRRT request was approved by NCR on 09-08-2015, prior to the issuance of both the 2015 and 2022 instructions, the respondents were bound to honour the original approval. The respondents’ reliance on these administrative instructions to cancel Yadav’s IRRT was held to be legally untenable. The Tribunal condemned their conduct in failing to relieve the applicant despite a valid and approved transfer.
Thus, the Tribunal allowed the application, and the respondents were directed to restore the applicant’s original IRRT application to its prior approved position. The respondents were also directed to consider the case for IRRT from SECR to NCR, Jhansi, in accordance with the earlier approval and the applicant was to be relieved within 15 days of receipt of the Tribunal’s order.
[Arvind Yadav v. UOI, Original Application No0.200/440/2022, decided on 02-05-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Advocate Manan Agrawal for the applicants
Advocate A.P. Khare for respondents
