Bhushan Ravindra Dhivare vs Union of India Throu. Sec. Ministry of Defence and Ors.

Order dated 27^th November 2024 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench in Original Application No.998 of 2024 has been challenged in this writ petition. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the transfer order dated 2^nd August 2024 and the consequent relieving order issued on 13^th August 2024. On a Court’s query, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner on account of financial difficulty has not yet tendered his joining at the transferred post at Port Blair. As we see in the representations made by the petitioner to the competent Authority, he has not joined the transferred post on the ground of pendency of this writ petition. We observe that no interim order has been granted by this Court in favour of the petitioner but he has not joined his post. On merits, we do not find any substance in the challenge laid to the transfer order dated 2^nd August 2024. The reliance placed by the petitioner to the transfer policy dated 25^th November 2005 does not provide any support to him to challenge the said transfer order. The Tribunal in its order dated 27^th November

¶12

bgp

¶13

Page | 1

¶14

3.628.25-wp

¶15

2024 referred to the decision in “ State of Uttar Pradesh v. Gobardhan Lal” (2004) 11 SCC 402 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the transfer is an incident of service and an order of transfer cannot be challenged unless it is shown that it was an outcome of a mala-fide exercise of powers or violation of any statutory provision. We may add to this that a government employee has no vested right to remain at a particular place or hold a particular post. In “Union of India v. S.L. Abbas” (1993) 4 SCC 357 the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:

¶16

“ 7. Who should be transferred where, is a matter for the appropriate authority to decide. Unless the order of transfer is vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any statutory provisions, the court cannot interfere with it. While ordering the transfer, there is no doubt, the authority must keep in mind the guidelines issued by the Government on the subject. Similarly if a person makes any representation with respect to his transfer, the appropriate authority must consider the same having regard to the exigencies of administration. The guidelines say that as far as possible, husband and wife must be posted at the same place. The said guideline however does not confer upon the Government employee a legally enforceable right. ”

¶17

3. The Tribunal in its order dated 27^th November 2024 has observed as under:

¶18

“13. At this stage, it is relevant here to take note of the argument of the learned counsel for the applicant on the basis of Oms dated 30^th July, 2014 and 02^nd July, 2015 on the subject of implementation of Hon'ble Supreme Court’s judgment passed in the case of T.S.R. Subramaniam (supra). It was also the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that his case was never placed before the Committee as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in respect of which the aforesaid Oms have been issued by the DoPT.

¶19

14. In the present case, impugned transfer order was issued by the competent authority on administrative exigency and in public interest which was duly justified by the Department in the present case. Further, it is not the case of rotational transfer. In these circumstances, the contention raised by the applicant is not tenable.

¶20

15. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion and proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gobardhan Lal (supra) and S. K. Nausad Rahaman (supra), there is no ground available for interference in the transfer order dated 02^nd August, 2024 and representation rejection order dated 30^th August, 2024. The OA is liable to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed. Pending Mas, if any, stand closed. No costs.”

bgp

Page | 2

3.628.25-wp

4. We do not find any error in the decision of the Tribunal and Writ Petition No.628 of 2025 is dismissed. However, we grant four weeks’ time to the petitioner to attend his joining at the transferred post i.e. on or before 17^th November 2025.

¶25

[GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.] [CHIEF JUSTICE]

¶26

JAYANT VISHWANATH SALUNKE

¶27

Digitally signed by JAYANT VISHWANATH SALUNKE Date: 2025.10.21 21:03:31 +0530

¶28

bgp

¶29

Page | 3

Bhushan Ravindra Dhivare v. Union of India Throu. Sec. Ministry of Defence and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhushan Ravindra Dhivare v. Union of India Throu. Sec. Ministry of Defence and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Partha Sarathy Sarkar vs Union of India

Zuber Abdul Rashid Khan vs State of Maharashtra through D N Nagar Police Station Vide C R No 249 2010

Mrs. Prema Yogendra Bhoir vs Mr. Yogendra Lahu Bhoir

Prashant Raul and Ors. vs the Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Ashok Lalchand Goyal vs The State of Maharashtra

Xyz vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.