Sanjay Kumar Srivastava EE (Civil) In CPWD S/o Sh. Anant Sharan Srivastava vs Union Of India & Ors

Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)

The present Original Application has been filed by the Applicant seeking the following relief(s):-

"(i) 1. To quash and set aside the Transfer Order dt. 1.10.2025 (Ann A-1) dt.23.4.2026 (Ann A-2) to the extent the applicant was illegally transferred from Delki, PWD to ADG, Kochi HQ, Chennai and his representation in this regard has been rejected, with direction to the respondents to post back the applicant to Delhi immediately.

To quash and set aside the OM dt.28.4.2026 (Ann A-3) to the extent it makes the applicant ineligible to apply for his being transferred back to Delhi or nearby to Delhi

To award costs in favor of the applicant and pass any order or orders, which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem just & equitable in the facts & circumstances of the case.."

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is presently holding the post of Executive Engineer (Civil) on regular basis. It is submitted that the applicant initially joined service as Junior Engineer on 07.12.1992 and was subsequently promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer on regular basis. It is further submitted that the applicant was transferred from Lucknow Region to Delhi Region and joined at Delhi on 29.04.2022.

Learned counsel submits that the applicant had filed various proceedings seeking promotion to the post of Executive Engineer and, pursuant to the orders passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal dated 16.04.2025 in OA No. 536/2025 read with CP No. 399/2025, the applicant was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer on ad hoc basis.

It is contended that thereafter, in order to victimize and harass the applicant for having approached this Hon'ble Tribunal, the respondents issued the impugned transfer order dated 01.10.2025 transferring the applicant from Delhi PWD to ADG, Kochi HQ, Chennai, allegedly in violation of the Transfer Guidelines contained in OM dated 25.05.2016.

Learned counsel further submits that the applicant submitted a detailed representation dated 24.10.2025 against the impugned transfer order and requested that he be retained/transferred back to Delhi without claiming TA/DA or joining time.

It is further submitted that the applicant's wife is suffering from "Pemphigus Vulgaris" and is undergoing continuous treatment at All India Institute of Medical Sciences. It is also submitted that the applicant's son is presently studying in Class XI and has already been registered with CBSE for the Class XII Board Examination scheduled to be held in February-March, 2027, as the registration process is required to be completed during Class XI itself in terms of CBSE communication dated 25.09.2025.

Learned counsel submits that, being aggrieved by the impugned transfer to Chennai, the applicant filed OA No. 647/2026, which was disposed of vide order dated 19.02.2026 directing the respondents to consider and decide the representations of the applicant.

Pursuant thereto, the respondents granted a personal hearing to the applicant on 17.03.2026, wherein the applicant was asked to submit his grievances in brief. Accordingly, the applicant submitted a further representation dated 17.03.2026 requesting that he may be permitted to continue/transferred back to Delhi temporarily till June, 2027 without TA/DA so that the academic career of his son does not suffer. However, the respondents illegally and arbitrarily rejected the representations of the applicant vide order dated 23.04.2026.

Learned counsel further submits that thereafter the respondents issued fresh Transfer Guidelines vide OM dated 28.04.2026, whereby the applicant has been rendered ineligible to apply for transfer back to Delhi or any nearby station despite the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.

Learned counsel for the applicant, therefore, submits that the impugned actions of the respondents are arbitrary, discriminatory, and contrary to the applicable transfer policy and are liable to be set aside.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that, at the time of issuance of the transfer order, the applicant's son was studying in Class XI. It is further submitted that with effect from 01.04.2026, the applicant's son has been promoted to Class XII. In support of his submissions, reliance has been placed upon the Transfer Policy, particularly the provisions relating to "Protected Employees".

"ix) Protected Employee These employees shall not be transferred to other stations without their consent.

a. Those employees who are due for retirement on attaining the age of superannuation within 12 months from the cutoff date of transfer.

b. Employee whose children are studying in class 10th & 12th during the year of consideration.

c. Self-disability or Employee who is care giver to dependent"

It is submitted that, as per the said policy, employees whose children are studying in Class X/XI during the relevant academic year are treated as protected employees. Learned counsel further submits that even at the time of filing the representation, the applicant's son was pursuing studies in Class XI/XII and, therefore, the case of the applicant deserves sympathetic consideration.

It is further argued that under the New Education Policy, registration for the Class XII Board Examination is undertaken at the stage of admission in Class XI itself. Thus, when the impugned transfer order was issued, the applicant's son had already commenced his studies in Class XI and was academically settled at Delhi. In such circumstances, shifting him to a new school at Chennai at this stage would seriously prejudice his studies and academic continuity.

Learned counsel also submits that, as per the applicable intra-regional transfer policy for Group 'B'/equivalent employees, the prescribed tenure is two years. However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, particularly the educational interest of the applicant's son, the applicant may be permitted to apply in the forthcoming transfer window even before completion of the prescribed tenure, by granting relaxation/curtailment of the tenure condition.

On issuance of notice on 08.05.2026 learned counsel for the respondents sought time to file reply, till date no reply has been filed.

It is not in dispute that the transfer policy provides for a special consideration in cases where the children of the employees are in senior classes like 10th and 12th standard. Applicant's son is in class 12th and shall be appearing in board exam in Feb-March 2027 is also not disputed. The applicant has joined at Chennai in deference to the transfer order and as such his request for transfer to Delhi/nearby can be considered since he has joined at the transferred place. As such this is a fit case where the respondents can be directed to consider the representation of the applicant sympathetically and permit him to apply for transfer to Delhi, Delhi-NCR, or any nearby station in accordance with the transfer policy.

In view of the above, the present OA is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation/ request of the applicant for relaxation/curtailment of the prescribed tenure at his current posting so as to enable him to apply in the transfer window for posting at Delhi, Delhi-NCR, or any nearby station, keeping in view the educational interests of his son.

The OA stands disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.