Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010236142025 2026:GAU-AS:136- DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6263/2025 DIGANTA KUMAR GOGOI SON OF LATE BHOLA NATH GOGOI, RESIDENT OF H. NO 12/775, DHARMESWAR BARUAH PATH, TARAJAN, A.T. ROAD, JORHAT-01 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI- 110001. 2:THE CONTROLLER GENERAL OF DEFENCE ACCOUNTS ULAN BATAR ROAD PALAM DELHI CANTT.- 110010. 3:THE SENIOR DEPUTY CONTROLLER GENERAL OF DEFENCE ACCOUNTS (ADMIN) O/O CONTROLLER GENERAL OF DEFENCE ACCOUNTS ULAN BATAR MARG PALAM DELHI CANTT- 110010 4:SENIOR ACCOUNTS OFFICER AN-II SECTION O/O CONTROLLER GENERAL OF DEFENCE ACCOUNTS ULAN BATAR MARG PALAM DELHI CANTT- 110010. 5:THE CONTROLLER OF DEFENCE ACCOUNTS AN-I A SECTION UDAYAN VIHAR NARANGI GUWAHATI PIN- 781171 Page No.# 2/4 For the petitioner : Mr. Sishir Dutta, Sr. Advocate Assisted by Ms. S. Mochahari, Advocate For the respondents : Mr. B. Deka, C.G.C. – B E F O R E – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY 06-01-2026 (Ashutosh Kumar, C.J.) We have heard Mr. Sishir Dutta, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. B. Deka, learned Central Government Counsel for the respondents/Union of India. 2. The petitioner has questioned the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter to be referred as the ‘Tribunal’), Guwahati Bench dated 26.09.2025 passed in O.A. No.040/00006/2025, whereby the Tribunal has refused to interfere with the order of his transfer dated 16.10.2024. 3. The petitioner has been transferred and posted from the office of Senior Deputy IFA (AF) (Senior Deputy Integrated Financial Adviser), Headquarters 10 Wing (AF), Rawraiya, Jorhat to the office of the PCDA (Pensions), Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh. The petitioner has challenged the afore-noted decision to transfer him on several grounds, but primarily for the reason of his wife working at Jorhat and the illness of his mother and Page No.# 3/4 he being the sole care-giver. The other reason for questioning the transfer is that he has not completed the tenure of three years’ posting on the post from where he was transferred, which is against the transfer policy. He claims exemption from routine transfer in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 08.10.2018 read with the Transfer Policy dated 31.01.2024. 4. The stand of the Union of India is that there are no mala fides in transfer of the petitioner. A transfer order need not be interfered with as it is for rendering prompt and efficient service, specially in defence forces. The transfers are imperative for aligning the requirement at various positions with the user requirement, necessitating transfers to different stations. 5. The records reveal that though the mother of the petitioner is stated to be ill but she is suffering from general anxiety disorder which may not bring her within the parameters of Benchmark Disability as per the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The fact of the spouse working at a particular place is no ground to stall or effect transfer. That apart, the Tribunal found that out of 29 years of service, the petitioner has remained at Jorhat for more than 14 years. 6. For the afore-noted reasons, we too are totally disinclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal in refusing to interfere with the transfer of the petitioner from Jorhat to Prayagraj. Page No.# 4/4 7. While saying so, we have also taken into account the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. S.L. Abbas, (1993) 4 SCC 357 and Shilpi Bose (Mrs) and others vs. State of Bihar and others, (1991) Supp. 2 SCC 659 holding that no interference ought to be made against a valid order of transfer if there are no mala fides or there is no indication of any infraction of statutory provisions. 8. We have also taken into account the reasoning of the Tribunal that the transfer policy with respect to SAOs of the department is not applicable in the case of the petitioner as he had not attained the age of 56 years when the order of transfer was passed. 9. We thus do not find any good reason to interfere with the order dated 26.09.2025 passed by the Tribunal. The writ petition is thus dismissed. No costs. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant