Transfer policy is guideline, not binding rule enforceable under Article 226: Rajasthan High Court

Jaipur: The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by an LDC (Stores) of the Canteen Stores Department against his inter-city transfer, holding that the transfer policy issued by the employer is a guideline and does not confer any legally enforceable right that can be vindicated under Article 226 of the Constitution.

A division bench of Justice Uma Shanker Vyas and Justice Ashok Kumar Jain observed that courts can interfere with a transfer order only if it is shown to be mala fide or contrary to a statutory provision, and that administrative guidelines for regulating transfers, at best, afford an opportunity to the employee to approach higher authorities — they cannot deprive the competent authority of its power to transfer in public interest.

The bench held:

“The Transfer Policy is not to be treated as a binding rule between the petitioner-employee and the respondent-employer. The petitioner has no right to enforce the provisions of the Transfer Policy as a violation of fundamental or constitutional rights, and the same is well settled till date.”

The division bench further relied upon the judgment of a co-ordinate bench of this Court in Union of India vs. Surendra Kumar, D.B. Special Appeal No. 720/2024, decided on 06.09.2024, which had held that transfer orders in the defence forces are primarily administrative decisions and judicial interference is warranted only in cases of statutory violation or malafides.

The petitioner, Chhatrapal Singh Gour, was appointed as LDC (Stores) in the Canteen Stores Department (CSD), Ministry of Defence, and joined service at Bathinda on 14.12.2018. He was transferred to Jaipur Depot on 27.03.2023 on his own request. By order dated 03.02.2025, he was transferred along with two other employees to HO (Secy Br), Mumbai — approximately 1,200 kilometres from Jaipur. His representation against the transfer was dismissed; the Central Administrative Tribunal, on the petitioner’s application, directed a fresh speaking order, which was passed by the respondents on 30.05.2025. The petitioner then challenged this order before the CAT in O.A. No. 307/2025, which was dismissed on 26.05.2026, leading to the present writ petition before the High Court.

Before the High Court, the petitioner raised two principal contentions. First, that his appointment letter designated him as LDC (Stores) and the respondents therefore had no authority to post him at the administrative Head Office. Second, that the Transfer Policy dated 04.10.2011, which prescribes the “longest stayee and choice station” formula, had been violated, as 25 station seniors had been bypassed without justification. The petitioner also alleged that the transfer was vindictive and mala fide, prompted by his e-mail to the Defence Minister complaining of non-payment of bonus and a subsequent RTI query filed under the RTI Act, 2005.

None appeared on behalf of the respondents despite service in the office of the Additional Solicitor General.

On the first contention, the bench held that the appointment letter conferred no right on the petitioner to be posted exclusively in the stores wing. Noting that the CSD’s Head Office is in Mumbai and that the petitioner had initially been posted at Bathinda — not a stores location exclusively — the bench observed:

“The appointment letter clearly indicates that the petitioner is posted in the Canteen Stores Department of the Ministry of Defence and the Head Office is Mumbai. The petitioner was initially appointed at Bathinda, which means that as per the rules and regulations, he is likely to be posted and transferred to any other place under the CSD, Mumbai. Any LDC posted in CSD Stores does not mean that he has any right not to be considered for posting at the back-end office or the administrative wing of said store.”

On the enforceability of the Transfer Policy, the bench placed reliance on a line of Supreme Court judgments. In Union of India vs. S.L. Abbas (AIR 1993 SC 2444), the Supreme Court had held that guidelines on transfers do not confer upon any government employee a legally enforceable right. In State of U.P. vs. Gobardhan Lal (2004) 11 SCC 402, it was reiterated that even where a transfer order is made in transgression of administrative guidelines, courts ordinarily cannot interfere since such guidelines do not confer legally enforceable rights. The bench also relied on Rajendra Singh vs. State of U.P. (2009) 15 SCC 178 and State of U.P. vs. Siya Ram (2004) 7 SCC 405, which affirmed that transfer of an employee from a transferable post is not only an incident inherent in the terms of appointment but also implicit as an essential condition of service.

Addressing the Transfer Policy’s guideline on “longest stayee and choice station” contained in Para 3(xxvi), the bench noted that the same policy, in Para 5, reserved to the General Manager, CSD the right to override or relax any provision depending upon exigencies of service, and that Para 3(xiv) expressly made organisational and functional requirement an overriding consideration for posting. The norm of “longest stayee and choice station,” the bench held, was prefaced by the word “normally” and subject to administrative exigencies — it imposed no absolute obligation.

Rejecting the allegation of mala fide, the bench noted that the transfer order dated 03.02.2025 had simultaneously transferred three employees to the same posting, negating any inference of singling out the petitioner. The issues of non-payment of bonus and deployment under a junior, while raised, had not crystallised into a personal conflict sufficient to establish vindictiveness. The bench also recorded that the petitioner had served at Jaipur Depot from March 2023 continuously, including an extended period on account of a stay granted by the Tribunal — a total of over three years, which exceeded the Transfer Policy’s prescribed tenure of two to three years.

“Having gone through the entire record of the case and also the grounds as raised by the petitioner, we do not find any mala fide intention on the part of the respondents behind the transfer of the petitioner, as there is no evidence to establish any personal vendetta on the part of any of the respondent(s). The issues raised, such as non-payment of bonus and working under a junior, have not turned into a personal conflict to presume vindictiveness or anything to suggest that the transfer was made on account of hostile atmosphere or as a disciplinary measure by the respondents,” the bench recorded.

The bench accordingly upheld the CAT’s order dismissing O.A. No. 307/2025 and dismissed the writ petition along with all pending applications, with no order as to costs.

—

Title: Chhatrapal Singh Gour vs. Union of India & Ors.

Case No.: D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10104/2026

Citation: [2026:RJ-JP:23078-DB]

Counsel for petitioner: Mr. Shobit Tiwari with Mr. Anshuman Singh Khangarot, Mr. Aditya Mishra, Mr. Anupam Bhargava and Mr. Rohit Tiwari

Counsel for respondents: None present