1 Writ-A No. 4684 of 2025 Union of India and 4 others vs. Anurag Shukla and 2 others Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:78551-DB Chief Justice's Court Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4684 of 2025 Petitioner :- Union of India and 4 others Respondent :- Anurag Shukla and 2 others Counsel for Petitioner :- S.P. Singh (A.S.G.I.) with Krishna Agrawal Counsel for Respondent :- Rakesh Kumar, Udai Chandani Hon'ble Arun Bhansali, Chief Justice Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra, J. 1. Heard Shri S.P. Singh, learned A.S.G.I., assisted by Shri Krishna Agrawal, Advocate for the petitioners, Shri Udai Chandani, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record. 2. Union of India and officials of its defence department have assailed validity of an interim order dated 19.03.2025 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in O.A. No. 65 of 2025 (Anurag Shukla and another v. Union of India and others), whereby the Tribunal, while inviting response from the respondents therein, i.e. the petitioners herein, has stayed effect and operation of a transfer order dated 24.12.2024, speaking order dated 14.01.2025 and relieving order dated 17.01.2025 till the next date of listing . 3. The facts, in brief, are that the respondent nos. 1 and 2 are working as Senior Auditors in the department. On the recommendation made by the Defence Accounts Placement Board (DAPB), the respondent no. 1 was transferred to Jammu and the respondent no. 2 to Pune under order dated 24.12.2024. Being 2 Writ-A No. 4684 of 2025 Union of India and 4 others vs. Anurag Shukla and 2 others aggrieved, the respondents filed O.A. No. 13 of 2025 before the Tribunal. The said application was disposed of by order dated 03.01.2025 directing the Competent Authority to consider and decide the representation dated 26.12.2024 submitted by the respondents in the light of transfer policy within a period of two months and, till then, not to give effect to the transfer order dated 24.12.2024. The Competent Authority, by a speaking order dated 14.01.2025, rejected the representation. Consequently, O.A. No. 65 of 2025 was filed by the respondents challenging transfer order dated 24.12.2024, speaking order dated 14.01.2025 and relieving order dated 17.01.2025 wherein the Tribunal has passed the impugned interim order. 4. Learned A.S.G.I. submits that the order impugned does not deal with the facts of the case in hand, rather it is simply based upon certain proceedings pending before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Bench and the Calcutta High Court. It is further urged that the order dated 14.01.2025 rejecting the representation of the respondents was a well reasoned speaking order and, immediately thereafter, on 17.01.2025, the respondents were relieved by the petitioners, however, the Tribunal has not only stayed the impugned transfer order but also order rejecting representation as well as the one relieving the respondents, which is not justified. It is further urged that the proceedings pending at Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Bench and/or Calcutta High Court, even otherwise, could not be made basis for passing the interim order, inasmuch as, even in those proceedings, specific order has been passed by the High Court that it has not restrained the Department from effecting transfer of officers concerned. 3 Writ-A No. 4684 of 2025 Union of India and 4 others vs. Anurag Shukla and 2 others 5. Per contra, Shri Udai Chandani vehemently submits that the transfer of petitioners and similarly situated employees is governed by transfer policy dated 28.03.2014 which restricts the Department from transferring members of Joint Consultative Machinery nominated by Recognized Headquarters Association and since the respondents are holding the posts in Regional Office Council (ROC-IV) at the level of PCDA (P), Prayagraj, they cannot be transferred. It is further urged that identical nature proceedings being pending before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Bench as well as Calcutta High Court, the Tribunal has not erred in granting identical interim protection by following the judicial discipline. 6. Further submissions have been made that, after passing of the impugned order, the Department has issued a communication dated 17.04.2025 in deference to the order dated 31.01.2024 passed by the Calcutta High Court in WPA No. 798 of 2024 whereby it has been decided by the Competent Authority to allow Group ‘B’ (Provisionally) and Group ‘C’ members to participate in JCM Level-IV (ROC) meetings, subject to final outcome of the case pending before the said High Court. It is, therefore, urged that since the respondents are office bearers of the aforesaid organization and have to undertake various activities pertaining thereto, their continuous posting at Prayagraj is inevitable so long as they hold such positions and, in case, the transfer order is given effect to, they would suffer hardships in attending the proceedings of the Council at Prayagraj by undertaking frequent journies from Jammu and Pune to Prayagraj and vice versa. 7. Further submissions have been made that in 55th Meeting 4 Writ-A No. 4684 of 2025 Union of India and 4 others vs. Anurag Shukla and 2 others of the Council held on 15.03.2019, issue of transfer of individuals was considered under Agenda No. 3, however, there was no consideration of the respondents therein and, hence, the decision to transfer them on the ground of ‘administrative exigency’ is not justified. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we find that the challenge laid before the Tribunal is mainly on the ground that as the respondents occupy positions in Regional Office Council at Prayagraj, they are exempted from being transferred under Clause 8.4 of the transfer policy dated 28.03.2014. Though reliance has been placed by the respondents on the proceedings going on before the CAT, Kolkata Bench as well as Calcutta High Court, claiming parity of issues involved at Prayagraj and West Bengal, we are not inclined to accept the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents at this stage so as to justify passing of an interim order by the Tribunal taking aid of proceedings being held at Kolkata. 9. Since Clause 8.4 of the transfer policy dated 28.03.2014 has been pressed into service by the respondents' counsel, it would be apt to refer the same as under:- “Members of Joint Consultative Machinery nominated by the recognized Headquarters Association will be exempted from transfer for so long as they hold these memberships except for administrative exigency. The President and the General Secretary of the Headquarters Association at the Headquarters office of Principal Controllers/ Controllers will also be exempted from transfer during the term of their appointment except for administrative exigency. The exemption will available for either of the two categories i.e. as President/ General Secretary or ROC/JCM-IVth Level Member.” 10. A bare perusal of Clause 8.4 would reflect that though 5 Writ-A No. 4684 of 2025 Union of India and 4 others vs. Anurag Shukla and 2 others members of Joint Consultative Machinery nominated by the recognized Headquarters Association have been exempted from transfer so long as they hold such memberships, there is an exceptional clause permitting their transfer for ‘administrative exigency’. Meaning thereby that, in a given case, where ‘administrative exigency’ warrants transfer of such members, Clause 8.4 would not operate as an impediment against it. 11. In the instant case, the Competent Authority, while deciding the representations submitted by the respondents by its order dated 14.01.2025, clearly enumerated ‘administrative exigencies’ by mentioning that administrative requirements at Jammu and Pune stations were far greater than that at Prayagraj and the officers have been transferred to stations where staff deficiency is far greater. Therefore, once the Competent Authority has found elements of ‘administrative exigency’ existing in the instant case, it cannot be said that Clause 8.4 would come in the way of transfer of respondents from one place to another. 12. As far as the proceedings being held at Kolkata are concerned, record reflects that WPA No. 798 of 2024 was filed by All India Defence Accounts Employees’ Association (HQ) Kolkata before the Calcutta High Court claiming various reliefs one of which is in the nature of mandamus commanding the Department to cancel/withdraw/rescind/quash the memorandum dated 26.12.2023. Other substantive relief is for commanding the authorities to allow the Senior Auditors to be a part of Joint Consultative Machinery and Compulsory Arbitration for Central Government Employees Scheme. A contempt application arising out of some order passed by the Calcutta High Court is also pending wherein the High Court 6 Writ-A No. 4684 of 2025 Union of India and 4 others vs. Anurag Shukla and 2 others has very specifically observed that it has not restrained the respondents from effecting transfer of officers of JCM Level-III and Level-IV. Relevant part of the order dated 28.02.2025 is extracted hereinunder:- “5. This Court has not restrained the respondents from effecting transfer of Officers of JCM Level-III and Level- IV.” 13. It, therefore, follows that even the Calcutta High Court has not restrained transfer of officers and, hence, the Tribunal at Allahabad has completely misdirected itself by staying the transfer and relieving orders taking aid of proceedings pending before Calcutta High Court. 14. As far as the subsequent communication dated 17.04.2025 issued by by the Department is concerned, the same is silent about transfer of members of the Council from one place to another, rather it only permits members' participation in meetings subject to outcome of the case pending before the Calcutta High Court. 15. As far as the submission of Shri Udai Chandani based upon 55th Meeting, the Court finds that Agenda No. 3 therein was in relation to prioritizing of individuals who voluntarily make their offers as such. Indisputably, the respondents having not made any voluntary offer for transfer, the argument advanced on that line has no substance. 16. Since the Original Application is still pending before the Tribunal and challenge in this writ petition is confined to an interim order only, we refrain ourselves from making further observations in our order, but we are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal 7 Writ-A No. 4684 of 2025 Union of India and 4 others vs. Anurag Shukla and 2 others was not justified in granting interim order of the above nature. 17. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 19.03.2025 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad in O.A. No. 65 of 2025 (Anurag Shukla and another vs. Union of India and others) is hereby set aside. The Tribunal shall decide the Original Application on merits. Order Date :- 13.5.2025 AKShukla/- (Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) Digitally signed by :- ANIL KUMAR SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad