Last Updated on March 12, 2026 by Satish Mishra

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) handles service disputes for Ministry of Defence civilian employees, including transfers that violate policies, such as those involving individuals with less than three years to superannuation. While transfers are generally considered a service condition, CAT can intervene if orders are proven to be mala fide, arbitrary, or in violation of statutory rules.

Key Aspects Ministry of Defence Transfer Matters in CAT:

Jurisdiction: CAT has jurisdiction over service matters, including transfers, for civilian employees of the Ministry of Defence.
Grounds for Interference: CAT generally does not interfere with transfers unless they are tainted by mala fide (bad faith), arbitrary, or violate established transfer policies or statutory rules.
Policy Violations: Transfers that violate specific guidelines, such as moving employees nearing superannuation (e.g., less than three years) or failing to consider compassionate grounds, can be contested.
Types of Transfers: Cases often involve disputes over routine transfers, postings to specific regions, or failure to follow guidelines for personnel in common orders, such as those under specific Corps Orders.
Interim Relief: The Tribunal has the authority to grant interim relief, staying a transfer order even if it has already been implemented, if it is deemed legally flawed.
Precedents: Decisions often rely on whether the transfer followed the mandated procedure, such as proper consideration of employee representations, including those on compassionate grounds

Common Reasons for Challenging Transfers in CAT:

Violation of tenure guidelines.
Transfers issued in bad faith (mala fide).
Disregard for compassionate grounds or medical issues.
Non-adherence to administrative, statutory, or policy guidelines.

Post covers MOD CAT Chandigarh Bench Transfer Case wherein direction by the Supreme Court in the case of T.S.R. Subrmanian & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors., 2014 (1) SCT 255 Transfer policy to be considered.

Case Name- Satish Kumar Vs. UOI & Ors.

Also Read- CAT stays order on MES cadre review – Tribune India

FACTS OF THE CASE:

Facts are being taken from OA No. 060/0023/2020 titled Satish Kumar Vs. UOI & Ors. The applicant herein assails his transfer order dated 02.01.2020 which is purported to have been passed in accordance with transfer policy dated 29.11.2019 whereby the applicant has been transferred from Chand mandir to Headquarters Eastern Command, Kolkata.

RESPONDANTS OBJECTION:

On notice of motion, the respondents put in appearance. Brigadier N.K. Ohri, VSM, Dy. JAG, HQ, Western Command is also present in court. Though he tried to justify the stand taken by the respondents in passing the impugned transfer order based on policy dated 29.11.2019, by submitting that the transfer policy has been framed pursuant to a direction by the Supreme Court in the case of T.S.R. Subrmanian & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors., 2014 (1) SCT 255. He also submitted that the interim protection was granted by this court to applicant in terms of the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court in CWP No. 105/2020, arising out of the order passed by this court, whereby this court had declined to grant interim stay.

Also Read- Jatinder Kumar (Mes No. 315467) vs Unknown on 22 Sept 2019

OBSERVATION MADE BY LEARNED COUNSEL:

Learned counsel representing the applicants very fairly submitted that in the eventuality of order going against him, the applicants may be given protection for another three days beyond the date of such order by the respondents so that the applicant can approach the court of law.

ORDER OF THE COURT:

After examining the averments made by both the parties and the stand taken by the respondents, the court disposed of all the OAs by directing the competent authority amongst the respondents, to whom the representations have been addressed, to decide the same by passing a reasoned and speaking order within the time as indicated above. While deciding the same, the respondents shall also consider the stay order granted by different Hon’ble High Courts in similar matters. The order so passed shall be communicated to the applicants.

Also Read- K Ravikumar vs M/O Defence on 25 April, 2019 – Indian Kanoon

CASE SUMMARY:

This order disposes of ten OAs, which involve identical questions of law and facts and relief claimed is also common. Likewise, is also requested by the learned counsel for the parties. For convenience, the facts are being taken from OA No. 060/0023/2020 titled Satish Kumar Vs. UOI & Ors.

For case specific advice, please contact Chandigarh Administrative Tribunal/Service Matter/Labour and Service/CAT/Legal Aid/Administrative/Senior/Service Employment Lawyers Advocates in Chandigarh Panchkula Mohali Kharar Derabassi Zirakpur etc.

Post Written by – Research Team of LegalSeva (LawFirm) of Satish Mishra Advocate. Responses from Google’s AI Overview included in Post.

Disclaimer: This is for informational purposes only. Consult a qualified lawyer for advice specific to your case.