Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:82862-DB Chief Justice's Court Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5873 of 2025 Petitioner :- Ashwani Kumar Singh Respondent :- Union of India and 4 others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pawan Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Shashi Prakash Singh (A.S.G.I.), Anurag Sharma Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J. 1. This petition is directed against order dated 17.04.2025 passed in Original Application ('OA') No. 323 of 2025 by Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad, whereby the OA, filed by the petitioner against transfer order dated 19.03.2025 and reasoned and speaking order dated 05.04.2025, has been dismissed. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Senior Section Engineer (Electrical-General) in the Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Division, East Central Railway, Mughalsarai on 10.05.2012. In the year 2018, petitioner's wife was diagnosed with chronic renal disease and is under treatment at Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow. On 19.03.2025, the respondent issued order transferring the petitioner from Mughalsarai to Gaya, the same was challenged by the petitioner as arbitrary and violative of applicable transfer guidelines. OA 232 of 2025 was filed challenging the order of transfer. On 27.03.2025, the Tribunal passed an interim order directing the respondents not to disturb the petitioner from the place of posting and directed decision on the pending representation. On 05.04.2025, reasoned and speaking order rejecting petitioner's representation was issued against which, the fresh OA was filed questioning the validity of the original order of transfer as well as rejection of the representation. The foundational issue raised pertained to the violation of the guidelines. 3. The Tribunal, after hearing the parties, referring to various judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court dealing with the transfer, dismissed the OA. Feeling aggrieved, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, referring to Clause-d of the RBE No. 23 of 2010 dated 02.02.2010 dealing with posting of husband and wife at the same station, submitted that the Authorities were not justified in rejecting the representation in the light of the specific provision and therefore, the orders impugned deserve to be quashed and set aside. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the order impugned. 6. We have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 7. Clause-d, as relied on by the petitioner, reads as under : “d. Where one of the spouses is a railway servant and the other belongs to a state service. The Railway servant should be posted at the station/place in the Railway/Division/PU in whose territorial jurisdiction the place/state of posting of his/her spouse falls. If it is not possible, if a request from the railway servant to the Controlling Authority of the spouse for his/her posting at the place of posting of the railway servant is received the same may be forwarded to the concerned authority for sympathetic consideration.” 8. A perusal of the above would reveal that while the guidelines provide that Railway servant should be posted at the station/place in the Railway/Division/PU in whose territorial jurisdiction the place/state of posting of his/her spouse falls and if the same is not possible, if a request from the railway servant is received, the same may be sympathetically considered. 9. A perusal of the above would reveal that the same does not provide/bars the transfer of the railway employee to any other place from the place of posting of his spouse. If the provision is to be taken as a mandate, then for all the time, the railway employee could continue to remain posted at the place of posting of his/her spouse, in a case where the nature of employment of the spouse of the railway employee is stationery, i.e, at one district/place only. In that case, for the entire tenure, the employee would seek posting at the same place, which cannot be countenanced/such an interpretation to the provision cannot be made. 10. While dealing with the representation made and passing the speaking order, the respondents have noticed that the transfer was part of a large scale rotational transfer exercise undertaken to ensure transparency, accountability and fair staff rotation and that the same was in larger administrative interest of the organization. 11. In view of the above fact situation, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. 12. There is no substance in the writ petition, the same is, therefore, dismissed. Order Date :- 16.5.2025 Mukesh Pal (Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) Digitally signed by :- MUKESH PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad