Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:127562-DB Chief Justice's Court Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10207 of 2025 Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar Respondent :- Union of India and 6 others Counsel for Petitioner :- Amardeo Singh Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I., Rajesh Tripathi Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J. 1. This petition is directed against the order dated 11.07.2025 passed in Original Application No. 594 of 2025 by Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad, whereby the OA filed by the petitioner seeking to question the order of transfer dated 23.06.2025 has been dismissed. 2. The OA was filed by the petitioner who was working as Commercial Inspector in North Eastern Railway, posted at Hathras City Station under the Izzatnagar Division, questioning the validity of the order of transfer from Izzatnagar to Varanasi Division on administrative reasons. 3. The Tribunal, after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that the Court should not ordinarily interfere with the transfer orders, unless such orders are shown to be in violation of statutory provisions or tainted with mala fide intention and as in the present case, the petitioner has failed to establish any mala fide intention or legal infirmity in the impugned order, the same did not call for judicial interference and consequently dismissed the OA. 4. Counsel for the petitioner made vehement submissions that petitioner was transferred contrary to the provisions of master circular (Annexure-4) wherein the petitioner could not be transferred before end of four years at the place of present posting and as he was posted at Hathras City on 27.09.2023, the transfer was against the master circular. 5. Further submissions have been made that as disciplinary proceedings are pending against the petitioner, in view of the Boards' circular, during pendency of disciplinary proceedings, he could not have been transferred from one Division to another Division and as the transfer of the petitioner is inter-division, the same, being in violation of Board's circular, deserves to be set aside. 6. Counsel for the respondents supported the order impugned. 7. We have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and have perused the materiel available on record. 8. The master circular, relied on by the petitioner regarding the tenure, inter alia, reads as under: “i. Railway servants holding sensitive posts and who come into contact with public or/and contractors/suppliers etc. should be transferred out of their existing post/seat or station as the came may be, after every four years.” 9. A perusal of the above stipulation would reveal that the indication made is in the positive, i.e., the Railway servant holding sensitive posts and who come into contract of public or contractors or suppliers should be transferred out of their existing post/seat/station, as the case may be, after every four years. There is no prohibition that the Railway servant shall not be transferred before a period of four years and, as such, reliance placed on the said stipulation in the master circular does not advance the cause of the petitioner. 10. The other ground raised pertaining to pendency of disciplinary proceedings also is equally baseless. The stipulation reads as under: “a) Non-gazetted staff against whom a disciplinary/criminal case is pending or is about to start, should not normally be transferred from one Railway/Division to another Railway/Division till after finalization of the disciplinary/criminal case.” 11. A perusal of the above would reveal that non-gazetted staff, against whom a disciplinary proceeding is pending, should not normally be transferred from one Division to another Division till after finalization of the disciplinary case. The stipulation is clear providing that normally the staff should not be transferred, however, the said stipulation cannot arm the person facing disciplinary proceedings to seek a direction that he should not be transferred. Once the provision indicates 'normally', the same cannot be used as a prohibition so as to question the validity of the order of transfer without indicating any prejudice in this regard. 12. Another submission was made that in similar nature circumstance, the Tribunal has granted interim order, however, the same has been refused to the petitioner. 13. A perusal of the order relied on by the petitioner in this regard would reveal that the Tribunal had noticed several grounds of challenge laid by the petitioner therein and then granted the interim order. Merely because one of the pleas raised therein appears to be same as that of the petitioner cannot by itself be a reason to seek parity. Even otherwise, interim orders passed cannot be used as precedent, unless identical facts are involved. 14. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order impugned. The petition has no substance. The same is, therefore, dismissed. Order Date :- 30.7.2025 P.Sri. (Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) Digitally signed by :- PUNEET SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad