The Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, has reaffirmed that administrative bodies cannot selectively implement transfer policies while ignoring similarly situated employees, thereby violating the constitutional guarantee of equality. This judgment establishes a critical precedent against arbitrary and discriminatory application of service rules in public employment.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Joy Roy Chowdhury, a Radiographer employed with the Employees' State Insurance Corporation (ESIC), sought an Inter Region Transfer (IRT) from Rourkela, Odisha, to West Bengal, in accordance with the IRT policy dated 21.12.2022. He submitted his online option for transfer pursuant to the circular dated 01.02.2023. The Respondent No. 2, the Employees' State Insurance Corporation, published a valid IRT list on 27.03.2023, placing the applicant at Serial No. 333. Despite this, the authority issued a circular on 25.10.2023 stating that no transfers would be processed for the year 2023, citing administrative inconvenience. The applicant’s request was subsequently rejected by an order dated 22.08.2025, which claimed that transfers granted to others were "special cases" arising from judicial mandates.
Key Facts
- The applicant was posted at ESIC Model Hospital, Rourkela, Odisha, as a Radiographer
- He submitted his IRT option online on or before 01.02.2023, as per the policy circular
- The IRT list for 2023, published on 27.03.2023, included his name at Serial No. 333
- On 25.10.2023, the Respondent issued a circular withdrawing consideration of all 2023 IRT applications
- The applicant filed Original Application No. 189/2025 before CAT Cuttack on 15.04.2025
- CAT Cuttack, by order dated 02.05.2025, directed the Respondent to consider his application in light of decisions from other benches
- The applicant filed a contempt application (No. 52/2025) after the Respondent failed to act
- On 22.08.2025, the Respondent rejected his application, citing that transfers to others were judicially mandated exceptions
- Other employees with similar positions were transferred: Purohit Keyur Kishore (Serial No. 366) and Swati Choudhury
- The Respondent later adopted a new IRT policy dated 28.12.2024, arguing that the applicant must reapply under the new policy
Procedural History
- 01.02.2023: IRT policy circular issued by ESIC
- 27.03.2023: Valid IRT list published with applicant at Serial No. 333
- 25.10.2023: ESIC issued circular withdrawing consideration of 2023 IRT applications
- 15.04.2025: OA No. 189/2025 filed before CAT Cuttack
- 02.05.2025: CAT Cuttack directed Respondent to consider application in light of other judgments
- 22.08.2025: Respondent issued impugned order rejecting transfer without valid reason
- 25.08.2025: Contempt application No. 52/2025 filed by applicant
- 18.03.2026: Hearing concluded
- 20.03.2026: Judgment pronounced
The Parties' Positions
For the Applicant
- Argued that his case was identical to those of Purohit Keyur Kishore and Swati Choudhury, who were transferred despite being on the same 2023 IRT list
- Contended that the Respondent’s refusal was arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution
- Relied on judgments from CAT Ernakulam, Bengaluru, and Mumbai benches, which had quashed similar non-implementation orders
- Highlighted that the Respondent had already implemented transfers in other cases under judicial orders, proving the policy was not abandoned but selectively enforced
- Rejected the argument that a new policy (28.12.2024) invalidated his 2023 application, as no notice or opportunity was given to reapply
For the Respondents
- Claimed that IRT is not a vested right and is subject to administrative exigencies
- Argued that the 25.10.2023 circular was issued to avoid disruption at year-end
- Asserted that transfers granted to others were exceptional, arising from court orders, and not applicable to the applicant
- Stated that the new IRT policy dated 28.12.2024 superseded the 2022 policy and the applicant must reapply under the new framework
- Contended that the applicant’s case was not similarly placed because no judicial order compelled his transfer
Relief Sought
The applicant sought:
- Quashing of the impugned order dated 22.08.2025
- Direction to the Respondents to implement his IRT from Odisha Region (Rourkela) to West Bengal Region as per the 2023 IRT list
- Costs of litigation
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether an administrative authority can selectively implement an IRT list, granting transfers to some similarly placed employees while denying others without objective justification, and whether such selective enforcement violates the constitutional guarantee of equality before law under Article 14.
Arguments Presented
For the Applicant
The applicant relied on multiple CAT judgments from Ernakulam, Bengaluru, and Mumbai benches, all of which held that once a valid IRT list is published, non-implementation without reason constitutes arbitrariness and discrimination. He cited State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali and E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu to establish that equality is not merely formal but requires equal treatment of equals. He emphasized that the Respondent had already transferred two employees from the same list under judicial compulsion, proving the policy was operational and the denial to him was purely discriminatory.
For the Respondent
The Respondent argued that administrative discretion in postings is broad and not subject to judicial interference unless mala fide. They contended that the 2023 list was merely a proposal, not a binding commitment, and that the withdrawal was justified due to year-end logistical constraints. They further claimed that the transfers granted to others were judicially mandated exceptions and could not be treated as precedents for general application.
The Court's Analysis
The Tribunal conducted a comparative analysis of the facts and judgments from other CAT benches. It noted that the applicant’s position was indistinguishable from those of Purohit Keyur Kishore and Swati Choudhury, who were transferred despite being on the same list. The Respondent’s claim that those transfers were "special cases" was rejected as legally untenable, since the basis for their transfer was the same IRT policy and list.
"The action of the respondents in overturning their promises much against the IRT policy certainly calls for interference by this Tribunal insofar as the applicants are concerned."
The Court emphasized that the Respondent had not demonstrated any administrative exigency that would justify the blanket non-implementation of the entire 2023 list. The fact that some employees were transferred under court orders did not negate the obligation to treat others in the same position equally. The Tribunal held that the Respondent’s conduct amounted to arbitrary classification - a violation of Article 14.
The Court further rejected the argument that the new policy dated 28.12.2024 rendered the 2023 application invalid. No notice was issued to applicants to reapply, and no transitional provision was provided. The Respondent could not retroactively invalidate rights accrued under a validly published policy.
The Tribunal also noted that the High Court of Odisha had already upheld a similar CAT order, and the Respondent had complied with it by transferring an employee in the same category. This confirmed the legal correctness of the approach taken by other benches.
The Verdict
The applicant succeeded. The Tribunal quashed the impugned order dated 22.08.2025 and directed the Respondents to consider the applicant’s IRT request from Odisha Region (Rourkela) to West Bengal Region in accordance with the IRT list dated 27.03.2023. The Respondents were ordered to pass consequential orders within 60 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. No costs were awarded.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Administrative Discretion Must Be Non-Discriminatory
- Public employers cannot invoke "administrative exigency" to justify selective implementation of policies that benefit some employees while excluding others in identical positions
- Once a policy-based list is published and accepted, it creates a legitimate expectation that must be honored uniformly
- Any deviation must be based on objective, documented, and non-arbitrary criteria
Judicial Precedents Bind Administrative Action
- CAT judgments from other benches on identical facts are binding in principle, even if not technically precedential
- Administrative bodies cannot ignore consistent judicial interpretations of their own policies
- Selective compliance with court orders while ignoring similar claims constitutes discrimination
Policy Changes Cannot Erase Existing Rights
- New policies cannot be applied retroactively to nullify applications made under prior policies without transitional safeguards
- Employees who have complied with procedural requirements under an existing policy cannot be forced to reapply under a new regime without notice or opportunity
- The burden lies on the employer to demonstrate a compelling reason for invalidating prior applications
