Group-A EPFO officer challenged his transfer from Kolkata to Mumbai, alleging arbitrariness in non-accommodation of his option places under an executive transfer policy. The court noted transfer is an incident of service, no statutory violation, detriment, mala fides or incompetence existed, and dismissed the writ petition declining admission.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
12.05.2026 Item No.12 Ct. No. 1 PG
WP.CT. 75 of 2026 Amit Athaley
Vs.
Union of India & Ors.
Mr. Bharat Bhusan Mr. Atindra Nath Misra Mr. Tamal Monda …..For the writ petitioner
Mr. Goutam Malik……For the respondent No.7/EPFO
DICTATED BY SUJOY PAUL, CJ.:
2
transferred from Kolkata to Mumbai has been rejected.
3
respondent/Employees Provident Fund Organization supports the impugned order.
4
statutory provision (not guidelines/ scheme), (2) changes service condition of the officer to his detriment and (3) proved to be mala fide, (4) passed by an incompetent authority. Another view is possible in the matter of transfer, is not a ground for interference. Employer is best suited to decide where service of an officer is required.
(SUJOY PAUL, CJ.)
(PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Tribunal rightly declined to interfere with the petitioner's transfer from Kolkata to Mumbai despite an executive transfer policy allowing posting options.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Union of India v. S.L. AbbasRelied on¶8
(1993) 4 SCC 357 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Amit Athaley
Union of India & Ors.
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-I/EPFO (Respondent No.7)
Sujoy Paul
Partha Sarathi Sen
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
