The applicant, a Senior Section Engineer, challenged a transfer from Ratlam to Mumbai Division following upgradation, alleging discrimination against 122 peers retained locally. The Tribunal directed respondents to treat the application as a representation regarding a pending appeal.
Status quo maintained pending reasoned order on representation; six weeks to respond.
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.
1
O A 200/872/2026
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH JABALPUR
(Hybrid Mode)
Original Application No.200/872/2026
Jabalpur, this Tuesday, the 15th day of September, 2026
HON’BLE MR. RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
Ganesh Avana, S/o Shri Purushottam Avana, aged about 42 years, working as Senior Section Engineer at office of Senior Section Engineer TMC/Ratlam – 457001, R/o Old Carriage Workshop, Jaora Road, Ratlam, M.P. – 457001.
-Applicant
(By Advocate – Shri Arun Soni)
V e r s u s
(By Advocate – Shri D.S. Baghel appearing on advance notice)
Page 1 of 3
ANUPA 2026.09.16 M 16:08:30 MISHRA +05'30'
2
O A 200/872/2026
O R D E R
The instant Original Application has been filed by the applicant seeking
following relief(s):
“8(i) Summon the entire relevant records from the respondents pertaining to the instant controversy for its kind perusal.
8(ii) This Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to quash/set aside the impugned transfer order dated 07/09/2026 (Annexure-A/1 & 09/09/2026 modified order Annexure A/2).
8(iii) Any other order or orders that this Hon’ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed.
8(iv) Award the cost of the instant lis to the applicant.”
2. Counsel for the applicant stated that the applicant has been transferred
from Ratlam Division to Mumbai Division consequent upon ug-gradation. He states that out of 122 persons, who were also given the benefit of upgradations, have been retained at the same place, whereas only the applicant
has been discriminated and subjected to transfer. The applicant has already made a representation dated 12.09.2026 (Annexure A-9), which is pending before the respondent Department.
3. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, the respondents are directed to treat this Original Application as a representation and they shall decide the representation dated 12.09.2026
Page 2 of 3
ANUPA 2026.09.16 M 16:08:30 MISHRA +05'30'
3
O A 200/872/2026
(Annexure A-9) keeping in view the averments made in this Original Application by passing a reasoned and speaking order, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time the representation is decided, status quo , as on date shall be maintained.
4. Accordingly, this Original Application is disposed of at the motion stage itself. No costs.
(Rajinder Singh Dogra) Judicial Member
am/-
Page 3 of 3
ANUPA 2026.09.16 M 16:08:30 MISHRA +05'30'
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Tribunal should treat the original application as a representation regarding alleged discriminatory transfer.
Whether the status quo should be maintained pending the departmental decision on the representation.
Ganesh Avana
Union of India
Rajinder Singh Dogra
As recorded by the court registry
An original application before a tribunal, most commonly a service dispute before the Central or a State Administrative Tribunal.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
