Disposed

Prabhat Pandey v. Employment Provident Fund

CAT11 Sept 2026O.A./142/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order addresses an application by a transferred employee seeking a posting at a preferred regional office under the EPFO Transfer Policy, 2025, which he felt was ignored despite furnishing preferences.

What did the court decide?

Original application disposed of with a direction to remit the matter to the Group-C Transfer Committee for a reasoned order considering applicant's preferences, vacancies, and administrative exigenci

Prabhat Pandey vs Employment Provident Fund — Labour and Industrial Disputes | CAT (2026)

¶1

(RESERVED ON 03.09.2026)

¶2

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD BENCH ALLAHABAD .

¶3

Pronounced on 11^th day of September, 2026

¶4

Original Application No.142/2026 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial)

¶5

PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA

¶6

Prabhat Pandey, a/a 42 years, S/o Shri Devi Prasad Pandey, R/o 03/107, Vipul Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh 226010

¶7

By : Shri Gaurav Gautam

¶8

V E R S U S

¶9

The Union of India through CBT Chairman of EPFO and Secretary of Labour & Employment, Govt. Of India, New Delhi

¶10

Central Provident Fund Commissioner, EPFO, Plate NO.A, Ground Floor, Block-II East Kidwai Nagar, New Delhi 110023

¶11

Additional Central Provident Fund Commissioner (HQ), HRM, EPFO, Plate No.A, Ground Floor, Block-II, East Kidwai Nagar, New Delhi 110023

¶12

Additional Central Provident Fund Commissioner, EPFO Zonal Office, Kanpur, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, EPFO, Sarvodaya Nagar, Kanpur 208005, UP

¶13

By Advocate: Shri Satyajeet Mukherjee

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

Heard Shri Gaurav Gautam, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Satyajeet Mukherjee, learned counsel for the respondents at the time of hearing of the case.

¶16

This Original Application under Section 19 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 has been filed by the applicant, seeking the following reliefs:-

¶17

8 (i) This Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to set aside the impugned office order dated 23.04.2025 passed by respondent-4.

¶18

Page 1 of 10

¶19

ii) to issue a direction commanding the respondents to reconsider and allot the posting of the applicant to one of his preferred regional offices, preferably regional office, Kanpur or any other preferred place as indicated by the applicant at the time of reporting on 11.04.2025, strictly in accordance with Clause 1.10 and other relevant provisions of the Transfer Policy, 2025

¶20

iii) To direct the respondent-1 to consider and decide the representation dated 03.11.2025 of the applicant in a time bound manner as deem fit by this Hon’ble Tribunal.

¶21

PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA

¶22

iv) Pass any other order or direction which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.

¶23

(iii) Award the costs of this Original Application in favour of the applicant throughout.

¶24

The case of the applicant lies in a narrow compass that the applicant was initially appointed as Social Security Assistant on 12.06.2009 and was posted at the Regional Office, New Delhi. He has been continuously working to the satisfaction of the respondents.

¶25

3.1 On 30.01.2025, the respondents notified a Transfer Policy for Group-C Cadre in EPFO for permanent inter-State transfer. It was stipulated that an official desirous of transfer could provide a choice of five duty offices, which would be considered by HR. It was further provided that all officials granted such transfer would lose their seniority and would be placed at the bottom of the State Seniority List in their respective cadre, while their pay would be protected.

¶26

3.2 The aforesaid Transfer Policy was circulated by the office of the applicant on 11.02.2025, inviting applications from desirous employees in the prescribed format for consideration of inter-State transfer. In pursuance thereof, the applicant applied for permanent inter-State transfer from Delhi to Uttar Pradesh on 18.02.2025 on medical grounds concerning his children and parents. The applicant had earlier also intimated the respondents regarding the medical conditions of his children, who were undergoing treatment at SGPGI, Lucknow and KGMU, Lucknow.

¶27

3.3 Subsequently, the respondents issued an order dated 27.03.2025, whereby the requests of the applicant and other employees for permanent inter-

¶28

Page 2 of 10

¶29

State transfer were accepted. The applicant was transferred from Delhi to Uttar Pradesh, and his name was mentioned at Serial No. 236. Accordingly, the applicant was relieved from Delhi vide order dated 09.04.2025 and was directed to report before the transferred Zonal Office.

¶30

PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA

¶31

3.4 The applicant submitted his preferences while reporting at the Zonal Office, Kanpur, on 11.04.2025, as follows: RO Kanpur (1st), RO Varanasi (2nd), RO Bareilly (3rd), RO Gorakhpur (4th), and RO Allahabad (5th). However, the respondents, vide order dated 23.04.2025, allotted the applicant to RO Meerut. It is alleged that juniors to the applicant, namely Anurag Tripathi and Anup Kumar Tripathi, were posted at Kanpur Regional Office on the basis of the preferences given by them, whereas the applicant was not given a posting in accordance with his preferences.

¶32

3.4 Aggrieved by the same, the applicant submitted a representation before the respondents on 24.04.2025, seeking posting at one of his preferred Regional Offices in accordance with Clause 1.10 of the Transfer Policy. The applicant also filed an application under the RTI Act, 2005, on 05.05.2025, seeking information regarding the sanctioned strength and available vacancies at various Regional Offices, as well as the status of consideration of his preferences and representation. In reply, the CPIO furnished details regarding the strength of various Regional Offices, the position of the SSA cadre, and other queries raised by the applicant.

¶33

3.5 The applicant again submitted a representation dated 03.11.2025, seeking his posting, preferably at the Regional Office, Kanpur. However, no heed was paid to his request. Hence, the present Original Application has been filed.

¶34

4. On the other hand, a short counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondents on 07.08.2026, wherein it has been stated that the applicant is a permanent resident of Lucknow and had sought inter-State transfer to a place within the State of Uttar Pradesh in terms of the Transfer Policy notified vide Circular dated 30.01.2025. In his application, the applicant had stated that his

¶35

Page 3 of 10

¶36

children were suffering from respiratory, paediatric urological and neurological problems and required constant medical treatment at KGMU, Lucknow as well as SGPGI, Lucknow. However, in his preferences, he did not opt for posting at Lucknow.

¶37

PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA

¶38

4.1 Upon his transfer to the State of Uttar Pradesh, the applicant came under the control of the Zonal Office, Kanpur and, accordingly, was required to be posted under a Regional Office. The respondents, in the interest of administration, posted the applicant at Regional Office, Meerut. The competent authority has stated that it is unable to understand why the applicant did not opt for posting at RO Lucknow when his two children were allegedly undergoing continuous medical treatment in Lucknow.

¶39

4.2 Transfer is an incident of service and that the employer is the best judge to determine the place where an employee should serve in the interest of administration. The applicant's request for transfer to one of his preferred places has been referred to the Group-C Transfer Committee (GC-TC). The recommendations of the said Committee are still awaited and, as such, no final decision has been taken in the matter as on date.

¶40

5. In reply, a rejoinder affidavit has been filed on behalf of the applicant on 14.08.2026, wherein the applicant has reiterated the averments made in the Original Application.

¶41

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that pursuant to the inter-State Transfer Policy, the applicant has already suffered the consequence of loss of seniority and has been placed at the bottom of the State Seniority List. Despite the same, the applicant has not been granted a posting in accordance with his preferences.

¶42

6.1 Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that in effect, the applicant has been posted at a place nearer to Delhi, which defeats the very purpose and object of seeking an inter-State transfer to Uttar Pradesh on the grounds stated by him. The impugned order dated 23.04.2025 is contrary to the

¶43

Page 4 of 10

¶44

very scheme and object of the inter-State Transfer Policy, particularly when the applicant had duly exercised his preferences in accordance with the Policy.

¶45

PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA

¶46

6.2 Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the case of the applicant is a clear case of discrimination, as juniors to the applicant have been granted postings at their preferred places, whereas the applicant has been denied a posting in accordance with his preferences without assigning any cogent or justifiable reason. He further submitted that although the Grievance Redressal Committee considered the cases of other similarly situated employees, the grievance of the applicant was not duly considered or dealt with. However, since the applicant’s grievance regarding his preferred posting is presently pending consideration before the Group-C Transfer Committee (GC-TC), learned counsel submits that, in the interest of justice, a direction may be issued to the said Committee to consider the applicant’s case in terms of the Transfer Policy, post him at one of his preferred places.

¶47

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the applicant has no vested or enforceable right to claim posting at any particular station or at a place of his choice merely because he had furnished certain preferences. The Transfer Policy itself does not confer an absolute right upon an employee to seek posting at any one of the preferred places, and such preferences are subject to administrative exigencies, availability of vacancies and the decision of the competent authority.

¶48

7.1 Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the applicant had voluntarily sought permanent inter-State transfer from Delhi to Uttar Pradesh and, upon being transferred, he was required to serve at any Regional Office under the concerned Zonal Office as per the administrative requirements. The applicant was accordingly posted at Regional Office, Meerut, and the said posting cannot be said to be contrary to the Transfer Policy merely because it was not one of the places indicated by him.

¶49

Page 5 of 10

¶50

7.2 Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the applicant himself had stated that his children were undergoing medical treatment at KGMU and SGPGI, Lucknow, yet he did not include Lucknow in his five preferences. Thus, the contention that the transfer was sought primarily on account of the medical condition of his children does not, by itself, confer any right upon him to seek posting at a particular place.

¶51

PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA

¶52

7.3 Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the comparison sought to be made by the applicant with certain other employees is misplaced, as the posting of an employee depends upon several factors, including availability of vacancies, administrative requirements and the overall position prevailing at the relevant time. Mere fact that certain employees junior to the applicant were posted at Kanpur does not establish any discrimination or violation of the Transfer Policy.

¶53

7.4 Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the grievance raised by the applicant is already under consideration before the Group-C Transfer Committee (GC-TC), and its recommendations are awaited. Since no final decision has yet been taken on the applicant’s representation, the present Original Application, insofar as it seeks a direction for posting at a particular place, is premature.

¶54

I have considered the submissions so raised by the applicant in person and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record.

¶55

The principal issue which arises for consideration in the present Original Application is as to whether, after granting permanent inter-State transfer to the applicant under the Transfer Policy dated 30.01.2025, the respondents were justified in completely disregarding the preferences furnished by the applicant under Clause 1.10 of the said Policy while allotting him Regional Office, Meerut.

¶56

From perusal of Clause 1.10 of the Transfer Policy, it is evident that the Policy specifically contemplates that an official due for transfer or desirous of

¶57

Page 6 of 10

¶58

PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA

¶59

seeking transfer may furnish his choice of five duty offices and such options are to be received through HR Soft or by any other method prescribed by the respondents. The aforesaid provision has consciously been incorporated in the Transfer Policy and, therefore, cannot be treated as a meaningless or redundant formality. Once the Policy itself provides an employee with an opportunity to indicate five preferred duty offices, the preferences so furnished are required to be taken into consideration by the competent authority while making the final allotment, subject, of course, to the availability of vacancies and administrative exigencies.

¶60

This Court failed to understand that the rationale behind providing an option to an employee to furnish five preferences if such preferences are ultimately not required to be considered at all. It is not the case of the respondents that Clause 1.10 does not apply to the applicant or that the applicant had failed to furnish his preferences in the manner prescribed under the Policy. On the contrary, it is an admitted position that, while reporting at the Zonal Office, Kanpur on 11.04.2025, the applicant furnished five preferences, namely, RO Kanpur, RO Varanasi, RO Bareilly, RO Gorakhpur and RO Allahabad, in that order. Therefore, the respondents were required to consider the said preferences in the light of the provisions of the Transfer Policy before taking a final decision regarding his posting.

¶61

However, it is settled proposition that an employee cannot claim posting at a particular place as a matter of absolute right merely on the basis of his preference. The administration is undoubtedly entitled to take into consideration administrative exigencies, availability of vacancies, cadre requirements and other relevant factors while making postings. But, such discretion cannot mean that a specific provision of the Transfer Policy providing for submission of five preferences can be completely ignored. The discretion of the administrative authority has to be exercised reasonably, fairly and in accordance with the very Policy framed by it. If the preference furnished by an

¶62

Page 7 of 10

¶63

employee is not accepted, there must be some discernible and rational basis for not doing so.

¶64

PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA

¶65

In the present case, the applicant had sought permanent inter-State transfer from Delhi to Uttar Pradesh and, pursuant to the said request, he was actually transferred to Uttar Pradesh. It is also not in dispute that the consequence of such inter-State transfer was loss of his existing seniority and his placement at the bottom of the State Seniority List in the cadre concerned. Thus, the applicant accepted a substantial service consequence attached to the grant of inter-State transfer. Having accepted such consequence, the applicant could legitimately expect that his case for posting would be considered in accordance with the mechanism specifically prescribed under the Transfer Policy, including the provision relating to furnishing of five preferences.

¶66

Another aspect which cannot be completely overlooked is that, despite the applicant having sought transfer from Delhi to Uttar Pradesh, he has ultimately been posted at Regional Office, Meerut, which, as contended by the applicant, is comparatively nearer to Delhi. The respondents have not been able to demonstrate from the material placed on record any specific reason as to why the applicant could not be accommodated at any one of the five Regional Offices indicated by him. The mere statement that the posting was made in the interest of administration, without disclosing the relevant administrative circumstances, vacancy position or other factors which weighed with the competent authority, does not sufficiently answer the grievance raised by the applicant.

¶67

Further, the applicant has raised a specific grievance that certain employees junior to him, namely Anurag Tripathi and Anup Kumar Tripathi, were allotted Kanpur Regional Office in accordance with the preferences furnished by them, whereas the applicant was not granted any of the five stations indicated by him. This Court is not inclined to hold, merely on this assertion, that the applicant had an absolute right to be posted at Kanpur or that the posting of the aforesaid employees automatically entitled him to the same station. Nevertheless, once such a specific allegation of differential treatment has been raised, the competent

¶68

Page 8 of 10

¶69

PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA

¶70

authority is required to examine the same objectively and ascertain whether the cases of the applicant and the persons relied upon by him were similarly situated and, if so, whether there existed any rational basis for treating them differently.

¶71

Admittedly, the applicant exercised his choice of five offices in accordance with Clause 1.10 and the respondents were required to consider the preferences actually furnished by him and now, the applicant’s grievance has been referred to the Group-C Transfer Committee (GC-TC) and that the recommendations of the Committee are still awaited as per the short counter affidavit. The respondents themselves have referred the applicant’s grievance to the competent Committee and the matter has not attained finality at the administrative level. Therefore, at this stage, it would neither be appropriate nor necessary for this Tribunal to substitute its own view for that of the competent authority or to direct the respondents to post the applicant at Kanpur or at any other particular station. Therefore, it would be appropriate to remit the matter back to the GC-TC for taking appropriate decision, by way of passing a reasoned and speaking order.

¶72

17 However, the aforesaid Committee is required to examine the matter in its proper perspective and not merely proceed on the assumption that the applicant has no right whatsoever to have his preferences considered. The Committee is also required to consider the applicant’s five preferences, the availability of vacancies at the relevant point of time, the administrative requirements, the reasons for allotting Meerut, the applicant’s loss of seniority consequent upon the inter-State transfer, and the allegation regarding posting of junior employees at their preferred stations.

¶73

In view of the above discussions, instant original application stands disposed of with a direction upon the Group-C Transfer Committee/competent authority to consider the applicant’s pending grievance afresh, in the light of Clause 1.10 of the Transfer Policy dated 30.01.2025 and after considering the observation as made herein above particularly para 17. The decision shall be

¶74

Page 9 of 10

¶75

taken by way of a reasoned and speaking order, so that the applicant is made aware of the basis on which his grievance has been accepted or rejected.

¶76

The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The decision so taken shall be communicated to the applicant forthwith.

¶77

PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA

¶78

It is made clear that this Tribunal has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the applicant’s claim for posting at Kanpur or any other particular Regional Office.

¶79

Resultantly, instant original application stands disposed of.

¶80

Pending Misc. Application, if any, also stands disposed of.

¶81

No order as to cost.

¶82

(Justice Rajiv Joshi) Member (Judicial)

¶83

PM/

¶84

Page 10 of 10

Prabhat Pandey v. Employment Provident Fund

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prabhat Pandey v. Employment Provident Fund

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Prajakta Prashant Wade vs Central Railway

Dilip Deorao Ukey vs Central Railway

Atul Sirjerao Thakare vs Central Ground Water Board

Prashik Anil Ramteke vs Income Tax Department

Shishir Kumar Sirvastava vs Union of India

Vijay Kumar vs Union of India

Dilip Kumar Pandey vs Union of India

Atul Mishra vs Secretary