1. Union of India, Through its Secretary, Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi. 2. The Controller General of Accounts, Mahalekha Niyantrak Bhawan, Ministry of Finance, GPO Complex, BlockE, Aviation Colony, INA, New Delhi110023. 3. The Principal Chief Controller of Accounts, Central Board of Direct Taxes, 9th Floor, Lok Nayak Bhawan, Khan Market, New Delhi. ... Respondents (through Advocate Mrs. Anupama Bansal) 2 OA No.70/2021 ORDER Hon'ble Mr. R. N. Singh, Member (J): In the present Original Application, filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has challenged the order dated 23.12.2020 (Annexure A1) vide which the applicant has been transferred from CBDT, Headquarters to ZAO, Rajkot. 2. The applicant has prayed for the following reliefs: "8(i) To quash and set aside the impugned Order No. 148/202021 dated 23.12.2020 to the extent the applicant has been transferred from CBDT, HQ to ZAO Rajkot and direct the respondents to continue the applicant in the office of Pr. Chief Controller of Accounts, CBDT, Delhi. (ii) To declare the action of respondents in transferring the applicant as illegal and issue appropriate directions to continue him at the present place of posting. (iii) Such other and further order which their Lordships of this Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and proper may please be passed." 3. Pursuant to notice from this Tribunal, the respondents have filed their counter reply and the applicant has filed rejoinder. 4. One Misc. Application, being MA No.314/2021, has also been filed on behalf of the respondents praying 3 OA No.70/2021 therein to vacate and/or to suitably modify the interim order dated 14.1.2021 passed by this Tribunal in the present OA. 5. As the learned counsels for the parties have agreed to argue the OA itself, the same has been heard with the consent of learned counsels for the parties. 6. The facts leading to the present OA are that the applicant was initially appointed as Accountant under the respondents and posted under respondent no.3 at New Delhi in the month of November 2012. After completion of three years of service, he was promoted to the post of Senior Accountant. Aggrieved by the impugned transfer order dated 23.12.2020 (Annexure A1), the applicant is stated to have made representation dated 28.12.2020 followed by another representation dated 06.01.2021 (Annexure A4 Colly). 7. Shri Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the applicant, has argued the following grounds in support of the applicant‟s aforesaid prayers in the present OA: (i) that the applicant‟s wife is serving in Bank of India, a public sector undertaking bank, and is posted at New 4 OA No.70/2021 Delhi and, therefore, the applicant is protected from transfer in view of the guidelines issued by the Department of Personnel and Training (hereinafter referred to as „DoP&T‟) vide their Office Memorandum dated 30.09.2009 (Annexure A5). He submits that provisions of para 4.(vi) of the said guidelines has been violated by the respondents in passing the aforesaid impugned order; (ii) that the applicant has been discriminated in as much as the longest stayees in Delhi have not been transferred whereas the applicant has been picked up for transfer vide the impugned order. He submits that such action of the respondents is arbitrary and discriminatory. In this regard, he has placed reliance on the decision of a Single Bench of this Tribunal at Allahabad in OA No.938/2013, titled Deepak Kumar Dhasmana vs. Union of India and others, dated 21.5.2015; (iii) that the impugned transfer is in violation of letter