HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 15023 of 2025 Chief Justice's Court HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J. 1. This petition is directed against order dated 11.09.2025 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad whereby, while admitting the Original Application (O.A.) filed by the petitioner, the prayer for interim relief has been rejected. 2. The O.A. was filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of the order dated 17.06.2025 by which he was transferred from one office to the other within the same city, by the respondents. 3. It was inter alia indicated that the petitioner was recruited in the establishment of the Postal Department in the capacity of Postal Assistant and joined on the post of PA cadre in the establishment of the Postal Division, Etawah and was accorded posting at Airwa Katra, District Auraiya. On 21.10.2022, the petitioner was transferred from Etawah to Kanpur City Dn and was working at Govind Nagar West Post Office. It is then indicated that on 17.06.2025, transfer order was issued whereby the petitioner was transferred showing the same in the interest of service. The petitioner raised objections to the transfer by filing representations which were not considered. 4. Aggrieved of the order of transfer, the O.A. was filed before the Tribunal which resulted in the order impugned dated 11.09.2025. 5. Plea was raised before the Tribunal that the action of the respondents Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Sayed Mohd. Abbas Naqvi, Shahdeo Prasad Pathak Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I., Gaurav Bishan Nitish Kumar .....Petitioner(s) The Central Administrative Tribunal Allahabad and 6 others .....Respondent(s) was contrary to the existing rules, the petitioner had not completed the tenure at the present place of posting and therefore, the order was bad in law. Further submissions were made that the transfer of the petitioner on administrative ground during the tenure, was not justified. 6. The respondents contested the submissions indicating that the transfer has been effected in the interest of administration and that no irreparable loss or injury would be caused to the petitioner as he has been transferred from one office to another within the same city and therefore, the O.A. was liable to be dismissed. 7. The Tribunal, after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that both the offices i.e. Govind Nagar West SO, Kanpur and Kanpur Cantt HO, Kanpur are located within the same city and that too, not at much distance to each other and therefore, no irreparable loss would be caused to the petitioner and while admitting the O.A., rejected the prayer for interim relief. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner made vehement submissions that the Tribunal was not justified in rejecting the prayer for interim relief. Submissions have been made that once the petitioner was able to make out a prima facie case which led to the O.A. being admitted, the interim order was required to be passed as a natural consequence and rejection of prayer for interim relief is therefore, not justified. 9. On a query being made, it was indicated that after passing of the order dated 17.06.2025, though no interim order was passed by the Tribunal, the petitioner is on medical leave and has, so far, not joined the transferred place. 10. Counsel for the respondents contested the submissions and submitted that the Tribunal has recorded sufficient reasons for rejecting the prayer for interim relief which does not call for any interference. 11. We have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 12. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has only been transferred from WRIA No. 15023 of 2025 2 one office to another within the same city and the distance between the two also is not much, as observed by the Tribunal. Merely because in a given case, the Tribunal finds a prima facie case, the same essentially is not sufficient for grant of interim relief as the Tribunal is required to also consider balance of convenience and irreparable injury. 13. Admittedly, when the transfer has been made from one office to another within the same city which offices are in close proximity, without there being any other grievance of the petitioner on account of such transfer except for alleged violation of the guidelines pertaining to tenure at a particular place, the refusal to grant interim relief by the Tribunal cannot be faulted. 14. Despite the Tribunal rejecting the prayer for interim relief on account of lack of irreparable injury, no ground has been raised in the writ petition and/or during course of submissions seeking to question the finding recorded on the said aspect. 15. In view thereof, we do not find any reason to exercise our jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for interfering with the order impugned. 16. The petition has no substance, the same is therefore, dismissed. October 7, 2025 AHA WRIA No. 15023 of 2025 3 (Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) Digitally signed by :- AFZAL HUSAIN ABBASI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad