AP High Court holds that cause of action arising partly in Andhra Pradesh confers jurisdiction under Article 226; quashes Central Administrative Tribunal's order invalidating transfer on grounds of personal hardship and inconvenience.
In a significant judgment dated September 29, 2026, the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, comprising Mr. Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Purushottam Kumar Chintalapudi, clarified the scope of territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and the judicial review of transfer orders of Central Government employees.
The case arose from a writ petition filed by the Union of India challenging an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Hyderabad Bench, which had set aside the transfer order of Mr. Kunda Pradeep Babu, a Group-A officer in the Indian Railway Accounts Service (IRAS). The transfer was from South Central Railway (SCR) in Andhra Pradesh to North Eastern Railway (NER) in Uttar Pradesh. The CAT had quashed the transfer on grounds of personal hardship, including health issues of the employee and his wife, family difficulties, and alleged violation of bail conditions.
The High Court first addressed the preliminary objection regarding territorial jurisdiction. The CAT hearing and order took place at Hyderabad, Telangana, but the applicant's service and cause of action were partly located in Andhra Pradesh, with the original filing done at the CAT Circuit Bench in Vijayawada (AP). The Court extensively analyzed the constitutional provisions and Supreme Court precedents, including the landmark judgments of Lt. Col. Khajoor Singh v. Union of India and Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu, to interpret Article 226(2).
The Court held that after the 15th Amendment to the Constitution, the territorial jurisdiction of a High Court under Article 226 extends to cases where the cause of action arises wholly or partly within its territorial limits, even if the seat of the government authority or the residence of the person challenged is outside those limits. Since the transfer order concerned an employee posted in Andhra Pradesh and the cause of action partly arose there, the Andhra Pradesh High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition despite the CAT sitting in Telangana.
On the merits, the Court reiterated the settled legal position that transfer orders are incidents of service and judicial interference is limited to cases involving mala fide or statutory violation. Personal inconveniences, health issues, or family hardships are not legally tenable grounds for quashing transfer orders. The Court observed that the employee should have complied with the transfer order first and then sought redressal through proper representation.
The CAT's interference on grounds of inconvenience and family hardship was held to be legally impermissible. The Court set aside the CAT's order and restored the original transfer order issued by the Railway Board, emphasizing that non-statutory transfer guidelines do not confer enforceable rights on employees. The Court underlined that judicial review of transfer orders should be exercised sparingly and only on recognized legal grounds.
The judgment also clarified that High Courts exercise writ jurisdiction over orders of Tribunals within their territorial jurisdiction, and the Division Bench of the High Court where the Tribunal falls has the authority to review such decisions. It rejected the submission that only the Telangana High Court could exercise jurisdiction merely because the CAT bench was located in Hyderabad.
This ruling reinforces the principle that cause of action in writ jurisdiction is critical for determining territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 and affirms the administrative autonomy in transfer matters subject to limited judicial scrutiny. It also provides clarity on the interplay between CAT orders and High Court jurisdiction in cases involving Central Government employees spanning multiple states.
Bottom Line:
Territorial jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution - High Court of Andhra Pradesh has jurisdiction to entertain writ petition challenging transfer order of a Central Government employee posted in Andhra Pradesh though the Central Administrative Tribunal deciding the OA is situated at Hyderabad (Telangana) - Cause of action arising wholly or in part within territorial jurisdiction of High Court is sufficient to confer jurisdiction - Judicial review over orders of Central Administrative Tribunal lies before Division Bench of High Court within whose territorial jurisdiction Tribunal falls - Transfer order is an incidence of service and judicial interference permissible only on grounds of mala fide or violation of statutory provisions - Personal inconvenience, health issues or hardship are not legally sustainable grounds for interference - Employee must obey transfer order and then represent grievances - Transfer order quashed by CAT on grounds of inconvenience held illegal and set aside by High Court.
Statutory provision(s):
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Section 61(2) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Sections 7, 8, 9, 10 & 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
Union of India v. Kunda Pradeep Babu, (AP)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2990256
