24.08.2026 Item No.09 Court No.01 KCP WPCT 161 of 2026 Union of India & Ors. - Versus - Shri Shamba Das Mr. Rudra Jyoti Bhattacharjee Ms. Debjani Ghosal …. For the petitioners Mr. Bharat Bhushan Mr. Atindranath Misra Mr. Tamal Mondal …. For the respondent The present writ petition has been preferred by the Union of India and its functionaries challenging an order dated 9th March, 2026 passed by the learned Tribunal in the Original Application (in short, OA) being OA/350/379/2026. By the order impugned, the learned Tribunal directed the petitioners herein to consider the case of the original applicant/respondent herein in the light of the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sk. Nausad Rahaman & Ors. -vs- Union of India, CA No.1243/2022 and also in the light of the earlier speaking order passed by the respondent no.5 on 27th August, 2025. Ms. Ghosal, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the respondent’s claim was earlier rejected by orders dated 27th August, 2025 and 17th February, 2026 and as such, the learned Tribunal ought not to have directed the petitioners to consider the respondent’s claim again. An issue 2 finally decided cannot be reopened and the respondent cannot reinvigorate his claim at this stage moreso when transfer is an incidence of service and is not a vested right. Such issue, as urged, was glossed over by the learned Tribunal and no finding was returned on the same. Mr. Bhushan, learned advocate appearing for the original applicant/respondent denies and disputes such contention of Ms. Ghosal and submits that the respondent’s claim was relegated for consideration to the petitioners as in the speaking order dated 17th February, 2026 passed by the respondent no.5 it was observed inter alia that the respondent may submit a fresh representation during the ensuing Annual General Transfer (AGT) exercise for consideration. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record. Records reveal that as the petitioners were not considering the respondent’s claim for transfer from Haldia to Kolkata, he was constrained to prefer an OA which was disposed of by an order dated 7th August, 2025 directing the authorities to consider such claim. In compliance of the said order, a speaking order was passed on 27th August, 2025 observing inter alia that the respondent’s representation for transferring him to Kolkata or a nearby place will be considered after 3 he joins the transferred post at Haldia. However, as such claim was not considered after the respondent joined at Haldia, he again approached the Tribunal and the said OA was disposed of by an order dated 8th January, 2026 granting leave to the respondent to submit a fresh representation for consideration in the light of the circulars. In compliance of such direction, a speaking order was passed on 17th February, 2026 specifically observing that the respondent ‘may submit a fresh representation during the ensuing Annual General Transfer (AGT) exercise, which shall be considered in accordance with the extant transfer policy and administrative feasibility’. In the said conspectus, the learned Tribunal relegated the issue for consideration and as such the argument of Ms. Ghosal is acceptable to this Court. We do not find any infirmity in the order impugned and that as such, no interference is called for. The writ petition being WPCT 161 of 2026 is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (Atarup Banerjee, J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, A.C.J.)