Smt. Neeraj Suri v. The Commissioner, Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti), filed as Annexure No

1. We have heard Sri Nishant Shukla, learned Counsel for the petitioners

2. This petition has been filed with the following main prayer:- "issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for records and quashing the impugned Order dated 17.04.2025 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in Original Application No. 543 of 2024 Smt. Neeraj Suri Vs. The Commissioner, Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti), filed as Annexure No.2 to the writ petition)."

3. It is the case of the petitioners that after completion of approximately 36 years of service, respondent no.1 was transferred from Regional Office, Lucknow to Regional Office at Patna on Administrative grounds. The respondent no.1 directly approached the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing the Original Application No. 543 of 2024 before exhausting a proper remedy of making a representation. The Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti filed its detailed objections before the Central Administrative Tribunal, but without considering the same, learned Central Administrative Tribunal has passed the order on 05.09.2024 initially granting interim relief without appreciating the law on the 2 WRIA No. 13660 of 2025 subject.

4. The petitioners had filed writ petition bearing Writ-A No.9281 of 2024: The Commissioner Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, Gautam Budhha Nagar and others Vs. Smt. Neeraj Suri & another, before this Court challenging the interim order dated 05.09.2024. Such petition was disposed off by this Court with the direction to the Tribunal to proceed with the Original Application expeditiously and decide the same finally without any inordinate delay, preferably within a period of four months. The Court refused to interfere.

5. Thereafter, when the Original Application was allowed, the Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti approached this Court at Allahabad Writ-A No.14002 of 2025, where the Court noticed that since on an earlier occasion, the Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti had approached this Court at Lucknow against the interim order, there was no reason to approach the Court at Allahabad against the final order. The Court dismissed the petition with liberty to the petitioners to question the validity of the final order before this Court sitting at Lucknow. Hence, this petition has been filed before this Court at Lucknow.

6. It has been submitted that the learned Tribunal has failed to notice that at the time of accepting appointment, there was a clear condition laid down that the respondent no.1 would be liable to transfer anywhere in India. The respondent no.1 after completion of 35 years, 10 months and 27 days of service at Regional Office, Lucknow has been transferred to Regional Office at Patna on Administrative grounds. It cannot be said to be a 'routine' or 'rotational transfer' as termed by the learned Tribunal. The Office Memorandum issued by the Department of Personnel and Training dated 08.10.2018 is with respect to the routine or rotational transfers. This Office Memorandum also does not put a blanket ban on the transfer of employees whose children are suffering on account of some disease.

7. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has also placed before this Court an Office Memorandum issued on 02.02.2024 by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance and Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training, providing fresh guidelines with respect to the persons with disabilities 3 WRIA No. 13660 of 2025 employed with the Government for efficient performance of their duties.

8. It has also been argued that the Regional Office at Patna is the nearest Regional Office from Lucknow and at Patna city adequate medical facilities are also available and renowned hospitals like All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences and other hospitals are in existence in Patna also.

9. It has been stated that the respondent no.1 was transferred because she had indulged in negligent and evasive behaviour towards official duties and responsibilities, which adversely affected the smooth functioning of official work at Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti in Regional Office at Lucknow. She remained on leave for 862 days, i.e., 2.5 years in her service, in an unauthorized manner in the last four years. She comes to office late and she leaves office early. Despite several Memo issued to her in this regard, she does not mark her attendance using AEBAS Biometric machine. Due to the negligent behaviour of respondent no.1, she is encouraging other employees also to resort to indiscipline. It is a glaring misconduct on the part of the respondent no.1 and instead of taking disciplinary proceedings, the petitioners have taken a lenient view and have transferred her to Regional Office at Patna in larger public interest and in the interest of the Organization.

10. It has also been submitted that respondent no.1 approached the learned Central Administrative Tribunal without exhausting departmental remedy of filing a representation against the order of transfer. While granting the interim order, learned Central Administrative Tribunal failed to notice that not only the transfer of the respondent no.1 was made on 01.08.2024, she was also relieved on 02.08.2024, and therefore, by staying the transfer order by means of a interim order, learned Central Administrative Tribunal had restored the status quo ante.

11. Learned Central Administrative Tribunal also failed to notice that even after being relieved on 02.08.2024 and before the interim order was granted on 05.09.2024, respondent no.1 had neither reported to the new place of posting, nor represented to any higher authority regarding any of her grievance in the intervening 25 days when she remained absent. 4 WRIA No. 13660 of 2025

12. Learned Tribunal has allowed the Original Application only looking into the personal difficulty of the respondent no.1, without looking into the fact that the respondent no.1 has been negligent in performing her duties and the petitioners have taken care to transfer her to Regional Office at Patna City, which is well equipped with similar standard of medical facilities as are available at Lucknow.

13. We have gone through the order passed by the learned Tribunal. We have also heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners on the legality of the order passed by the Tribunal, taking into account the several case laws that have been cited not only before the Central Administrative Tribunal, but also before this Court, however, we find that in case the petitioners were so aggrieved by the negligent behaviour and misconduct of the respondent no.1, they could have initiated disciplinary proceedings against her even for minor penalty. There could have been a show-cause notice issued under the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, but taking the easier way out and transferring the respondent no.1 causing undue hardship to her son, would not be right thing to do.

14. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Somesh Tiwari Vs. Union of India, 2009 (2) SCC 592, has held that prima facie where there is some negligent behaviour or misconduct on the part of a delinquent employee, transferring such an employee cannot be taken as a way out instead of initiating disciplinary proceedings.

15. Having considered the arguments, we also find on a human note that, although Patna city may have the same standard of medical facilities as are presently at Lucknow, the respondent no.1, who is only a Stenographer may not be able to take the currently employed caregivers along with her to Patna who are looking after her son while she is performing her official duties. The caregivers may not be willing to leave their comfortable residences at Lucknow, and move along with the respondent no.1 only to give proper care to her admittedly physically challenged son. It would be very difficult for the respondent no.1 to engage fresh caregivers and train them suitably enough within a short period of time to look after her son while she attends the office. 5 WRIA No. 13660 of 2025

16. We agree with the order quashing the transfer of the respondent no.1 on the ground that her son has 75% disability due to the cerebral palsy and is confined to bed and cannot sit, walk or do daily routine work all by himself. His treatment is going on in Ajanta Hospital, Lucknow. Also, there are other personal problems of the respondent mentioned in the order impugned, with which we are not so much concerned.

17. This writ petition is dismissed as we do not find it appropriate to exercise our equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in such a case. (Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.) November 27, 2025 Rahul RAHUL TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. We have heard Sri Nishant Shukla, learned Counsel for the petitioners

2. This petition has been filed with the following main prayer:- "issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for records and quashing the impugned Order dated 17.04.2025 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in Original Application No. 543 of 2024 Smt. Neeraj Suri Vs. The Commissioner, Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti), filed as Annexure No.2 to the writ petition)."

3. It is the case of the petitioners that after completion of approximately 36 years of service, respondent no.1 was transferred from Regional Office, Lucknow to Regional Office at Patna on Administrative grounds. The respondent no.1 directly approached the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing the Original Application No. 543 of 2024 before exhausting a proper remedy of making a representation. The Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti filed its detailed objections before the Central Administrative Tribunal, but without considering the same, learned Central Administrative Tribunal has passed the order on 05.09.2024 initially granting interim relief without appreciating the law on the 2 WRIA No. 13660 of 2025 subject.

4. The petitioners had filed writ petition bearing Writ-A No.9281 of 2024: The Commissioner Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, Gautam Budhha Nagar and others Vs. Smt. Neeraj Suri & another, before this Court challenging the interim order dated 05.09.2024. Such petition was disposed off by this Court with the direction to the Tribunal to proceed with the Original Application expeditiously and decide the same finally without any inordinate delay, preferably within a period of four months. The Court refused to interfere.

5. Thereafter, when the Original Application was allowed, the Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti approached this Court at Allahabad Writ-A No.14002 of 2025, where the Court noticed that since on an earlier occasion, the Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti had approached this Court at Lucknow against the interim order, there was no reason to approach the Court at Allahabad against the final order. The Court dismissed the petition with liberty to the petitioners to question the validity of the final order before this Court sitting at Lucknow. Hence, this petition has been filed before this Court at Lucknow.

6. It has been submitted that the learned Tribunal has failed to notice that at the time of accepting appointment, there was a clear condition laid down that the respondent no.1 would be liable to transfer anywhere in India. The respondent no.1 after completion of 35 years, 10 months and 27 days of service at Regional Office, Lucknow has been transferred to Regional Office at Patna on Administrative grounds. It cannot be said to be a 'routine' or 'rotational transfer' as termed by the learned Tribunal. The Office Memorandum issued by the Department of Personnel and Training dated 08.10.2018 is with respect to the routine or rotational transfers. This Office Memorandum also does not put a blanket ban on the transfer of employees whose children are suffering on account of some disease.

7. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has also placed before this Court an Office Memorandum issued on 02.02.2024 by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance and Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training, providing fresh guidelines with respect to the persons with disabilities 3 WRIA No. 13660 of 2025 employed with the Government for efficient performance of their duties.

8. It has also been argued that the Regional Office at Patna is the nearest Regional Office from Lucknow and at Patna city adequate medical facilities are also available and renowned hospitals like All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences and other hospitals are in existence in Patna also.

9. It has been stated that the respondent no.1 was transferred because she had indulged in negligent and evasive behaviour towards official duties and responsibilities, which adversely affected the smooth functioning of official work at Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti in Regional Office at Lucknow. She remained on leave for 862 days, i.e., 2.5 years in her service, in an unauthorized manner in the last four years. She comes to office late and she leaves office early. Despite several Memo issued to her in this regard, she does not mark her attendance using AEBAS Biometric machine. Due to the negligent behaviour of respondent no.1, she is encouraging other employees also to resort to indiscipline. It is a glaring misconduct on the part of the respondent no.1 and instead of taking disciplinary proceedings, the petitioners have taken a lenient view and have transferred her to Regional Office at Patna in larger public interest and in the interest of the Organization.

10. It has also been submitted that respondent no.1 approached the learned Central Administrative Tribunal without exhausting departmental remedy of filing a representation against the order of transfer. While granting the interim order, learned Central Administrative Tribunal failed to notice that not only the transfer of the respondent no.1 was made on 01.08.2024, she was also relieved on 02.08.2024, and therefore, by staying the transfer order by means of a interim order, learned Central Administrative Tribunal had restored the status quo ante.

11. Learned Central Administrative Tribunal also failed to notice that even after being relieved on 02.08.2024 and before the interim order was granted on 05.09.2024, respondent no.1 had neither reported to the new place of posting, nor represented to any higher authority regarding any of her grievance in the intervening 25 days when she remained absent. 4 WRIA No. 13660 of 2025

12. Learned Tribunal has allowed the Original Application only looking into the personal difficulty of the respondent no.1, without looking into the fact that the respondent no.1 has been negligent in performing her duties and the petitioners have taken care to transfer her to Regional Office at Patna City, which is well equipped with similar standard of medical facilities as are available at Lucknow.

13. We have gone through the order passed by the learned Tribunal. We have also heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners on the legality of the order passed by the Tribunal, taking into account the several case laws that have been cited not only before the Central Administrative Tribunal, but also before this Court, however, we find that in case the petitioners were so aggrieved by the negligent behaviour and misconduct of the respondent no.1, they could have initiated disciplinary proceedings against her even for minor penalty. There could have been a show-cause notice issued under the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, but taking the easier way out and transferring the respondent no.1 causing undue hardship to her son, would not be right thing to do.

14. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Somesh Tiwari Vs. Union of India, 2009 (2) SCC 592, has held that prima facie where there is some negligent behaviour or misconduct on the part of a delinquent employee, transferring such an employee cannot be taken as a way out instead of initiating disciplinary proceedings.

15. Having considered the arguments, we also find on a human note that, although Patna city may have the same standard of medical facilities as are presently at Lucknow, the respondent no.1, who is only a Stenographer may not be able to take the currently employed caregivers along with her to Patna who are looking after her son while she is performing her official duties. The caregivers may not be willing to leave their comfortable residences at Lucknow, and move along with the respondent no.1 only to give proper care to her admittedly physically challenged son. It would be very difficult for the respondent no.1 to engage fresh caregivers and train them suitably enough within a short period of time to look after her son while she attends the office. 5 WRIA No. 13660 of 2025

16. We agree with the order quashing the transfer of the respondent no.1 on the ground that her son has 75% disability due to the cerebral palsy and is confined to bed and cannot sit, walk or do daily routine work all by himself. His treatment is going on in Ajanta Hospital, Lucknow. Also, there are other personal problems of the respondent mentioned in the order impugned, with which we are not so much concerned.

17. This writ petition is dismissed as we do not find it appropriate to exercise our equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in such a case. (Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.) November 27, 2025 Rahul RAHUL TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench