The Supreme Court has clarified that “cadre change” is fundamentally distinct from “transfer”, and cannot be treated as a routine administrative adjustment.
The bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh allowed the appeal filed by an employee seeking allocation to the Uttarakhand cadre and directed the State authorities to facilitate his reallocation with full protection of seniority and service benefits.
The dispute arose from a long-standing service grievance of the appellant, who had appeared in the Combined Lower Subordinate Services Examination, 1995, and had opted for posting in the ‘hill region’ (now Uttarakhand). Despite securing good marks, he was initially denied appointment on technical grounds related to submission of documents.
After prolonged litigation, the High Court in 2004 allowed his claim for appointment, but the actual appointment materialised only in 2011. Subsequently, the employee sought allocation to the hill cadre, consistent with his original preference and personal circumstances, including his son’s medical condition. However, the High Court later rejected his request, holding that once he was allocated to Uttar Pradesh, cadre change was not permissible.
The Court drew a clear legal distinction between a change in posting within the same cadre; does not affect service identity or seniority and a structural shift from one cadre to another, impacting service conditions, seniority, and promotional avenues.
Buy Now: E-Compilation of Supreme Court Judgements – March 2026
The Court emphasized that cadre change is not a routine administrative act but requires legal justification, and therefore the High Court erred in treating the issue as a mere transfer request.
Referring to cadre allocation principles, the Court noted that allocation is guided by employee’s option, domicile, and seniority considerations.
Since the appellant had opted for the hill cadre, and claimed domicile in present-day Uttarakhand, his request for reallocation ought to have been considered favourably.
The Court also took note of policy exceptions, particularly medical hardship cases, which allow allocation based on employee preference.
It held that the appellant’s case qualified under this category due to his son’s cognitive disability, thereby strengthening his claim for cadre reallocation.
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court judgment and directed the Chief Secretary, Uttar Pradesh to facilitate immediate reallocation to Uttarakhand, ordered protection of seniority and all service benefits, and directed coordination with the State of Uttarakhand for implementation.
The Court expressed “deep anguish” over the extraordinary delay spanning nearly 26 years: Eligibility: 1997; Appointment: 2011; and Relief granted: 2026.
The Court termed the conduct of the State as “apathy”, noting that the employee was forced to run “from pillar to post” for decades.
Recognising the prolonged injustice, the Court imposed costs of ₹1,00,000 on the State of Uttar Pradesh, to be paid to the appellant within four weeks.
The Court also flagged systemic concerns, urging High Courts to identify long-pending service matters, and ensure expeditious disposal to prevent similar hardships.
Case Details
Case Title: Rajendra Singh Bora Versus Union Of India & Ors.
Citation: JURISHOUR-896-SC-2026
Case No.: SLP (C) No.29304 of 2018
Date: 22/04/2026
