The Central Administrative Tribunal (Ahmedabad Bench) has held that once a No Objection Certificate (NOC) is issued by the receiving railway and the employee occupies the top priority, the parent railway cannot indefinitely withhold the relieving order on the ground of administrative exigency.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Shri Vaibhav Kumar, a permanent Track Maintainer-III (TM-III) in the Western Railway’s Ahmedabad Division, sought an inter-railway transfer on spouse ground to the Northern Railway’s Moradabad Division. His wife, a government teacher, is posted in Moradabad, Uttar Pradesh. The applicant filed an online application (Application No. OR00516087) on 12.12.2023 requesting the transfer.
Key Facts
- 25.08.2025: Moradabad Division issued a No Objection Certificate (NOC) in favour of the applicant, priority No. 1, valid until 24.08.2026 (Annexure A/1).
- 06.04.2026: The transfer proposal was assigned Proposal ID No. 8156 and forwarded for approval.
- 11.03.2026: The applicant made a personal representation to the Divisional Railway Manager (DRM) of Ahmedabad Division requesting immediate relieving; the DRM issued a note on the same day stating no further processing was required.
- 23.03.2026: A second representation was filed, reiterating the request for relieving.
- 06.04.2026 - 24.08.2026: The proposal remained pending before the DRM, Ahmedabad Division.
- 19.08.2026: Respondents filed a reply contesting the applicant’s claim, relying on Paragraph 226 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code (IREC) and various Railway Board Instructions.
- The applicant’s cadre data (as produced by respondents): total sanctioned strength 4,803; available staff 3,239; overall vacancy 1,524 (31.73%). For TM-III, sanctioned 923, available 1,032, indicating an excess of 109 staff.
Procedural History
- 24.08.2026: Original Application No. 283 of 2026 filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench.
- 20.08.2026: Matter reserved.
- 24.08.2026: Order pronounced by Members Hon'ble Mr. Jayesh V. Bhairavia (J) and Hon'ble Mr. Sanjiv Kumar (A).
Relief Sought
The applicant prayed that the Tribunal:
- Direct the respondents to issue a relieving order within the NOC’s validity and grant all consequential benefits.
- Call for the entire record of the applicant for perusal.
- Grant any other relief deemed fit.
- Award costs of the application.
The Legal Issue
Whether, after an inter-railway transfer request has been accepted by the receiving railway and a valid NOC issued, the parent railway may indefinitely withhold the relieving order on the basis of administrative exigency, manpower shortage, or the proposition that a railway servant has no vested right to transfer.
Arguments Presented
For the Applicant
- The applicant relied on the NOC dated 25.08.2025, his priority No. 1 status, and the Railway Board circulars (RBE No. 170/2005, RBE No. 203/2019) that mandate timely relieving once an NOC is issued.
- Cited the Tribunal’s earlier decision in Anirudh Prasad v. Union of India (OA No. 443/2021, 01.02.2022) where the Tribunal ordered relief upon issuance of an NOC.
- Highlighted the respondents’ own vacancy figures showing an excess of staff in the TM-III category, negating any claim of shortage.
- Emphasised that the grievance is not a challenge to a transfer order but a demand for implementation of an already processed transfer.
For the Respondents
- Asserted that Paragraph 226 of the IREC provides that a railway servant has no vested right to transfer and that transfers are purely an incident of service.
- Contended that safety-category postings require special consideration and that administrative exigency, manpower constraints, and operational safety justify withholding the relieving order.
- Relied on Supreme Court precedents (Union of India v. S.L. Abbas, State of M.P. v. S.S. Kourav, Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar) to argue that courts should not interfere with administrative transfer decisions.
- Submitted that the applicant’s request, though on spouse ground, does not create an indefeasible right and must yield to overall service requirements.
The Court's Analysis
The Tribunal first acknowledged the settled principle that a transfer is an incident of service and that a railway servant does not possess an absolute right to be posted at a particular location. It cited Union of India v. S.L. Abbas and related judgments to reaffirm this rule. However, the Tribunal distinguished the present facts from those precedents. The applicant was not contesting a transfer imposed upon him; rather, he had voluntarily sought a transfer, which was processed, accepted, and culminated in a valid NOC.
The Tribunal examined the statutory framework:
- Paragraph 226 of the IREC (Vol I): while it bars a claim of right to transfer, it also recognises welfare provisions for special circumstances, such as spouse-ground transfers.
- Railway Board Instructions: RBE No. 170/2005 mandates that inter-zonal transfers should not be withheld on the ground of vacancies and, if delayed, a time-bound programme to fill vacancies must be instituted. RBE No. 203/2019 requires timely relieving of employees whose NOC has been issued.
Applying these provisions, the Tribunal held that once the receiving railway issues an NOC and the employee occupies the highest priority, the parent railway is obligated to act in conformity with its own rules. The respondents’ reliance on a generic “administrative exigency” was deemed insufficient; they failed to produce concrete material demonstrating why the applicant’s relieving would imperil safety or create a genuine shortage, especially given the excess of 109 TM-III staff.
The Tribunal also reiterated the ratio from Anirudh Prasad that the duty to honour an NOC cannot be sidestepped by an open-ended claim of manpower shortage. It noted that the respondents’ own vacancy data contradicted their assertion of shortage. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the respondents’ refusal to issue the relieving order was arbitrary and contrary to both the Railway Board’s policy and the specific facts of the case.
"The respondent No.1 or the respondent No.2 are directed to issue the relieving order forthwith to the applicant pursuant to the NOC dated 25.08.2025 issued by Moradabad Division, Northern Railway enable him to join the said Division."
The Tribunal therefore exercised its jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, to compel the respondents to comply with the NOC and to grant the applicant all consequential benefits.
The Verdict
The applicant succeeded. The Tribunal ordered that the respondents issue the relieving order immediately, keep the post vacant until the applicant joins, and grant all consequential benefits. No costs were awarded. Any pending matters were disposed of.
What This Means For Similar Cases
NOC Triggers an Obligation to Relieve
- Once a No Objection Certificate is issued and the employee holds the top priority, the parent railway must act in accordance with its own rules and cannot delay relief on vague grounds.
- Practitioners should ensure that the NOC is obtained and that the priority position is documented before filing a writ-like application.
Administrative Exigency Is Not a Blanket Defence
- Respondents must substantiate any claim of manpower shortage or safety concerns with concrete data.
- The burden of proof lies on the employer to demonstrate that relieving the employee would cause a real operational impediment.
Priority and Vacancy Figures Must Be Substantiated
- Employers should maintain up-to-date vacancy statistics and be prepared to show how an individual’s relieving affects the cadre balance.
- Courts will scrutinise any assertion of shortage against the employer’s own figures.
Actionable Takeaways
- File a detailed representation citing the NOC, priority rank, and vacancy data.
- Attach the relevant Railway Board circulars (e.g., RBE No. 170/2005, RBE No. 203/2019) to demonstrate statutory duty.
- Be prepared to counter generic claims of “administrative exigency” with specific operational evidence.
