JUDGMENT : M. Choudhury, J. Heard Mr. S. Engti, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. M. Kato, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India [DSGI] for the respondent no. 1; and Mr. S. Tapin, learned Senior Government Advocate, Arunachal Pradesh for the respondent nos. 2 – 5. 2. Mr. S. Engti, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that by an Order dated 28.02.2025, a proper direction was not issued to the petitioner on the aspect whether the petitioner has to report at Dadra & Nagar Haveli and Daman & Diu [DNHⅅ]. According to him, subsequent to the said Order, the petitioner has not been given any direction to report at his new post of CCF at DNH&DD. 3. From the materials on record, it has emerged that by an Order dated 30.12.2024, the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India [GoI] promoted the petitioner, who is a Member of the Indian Forest Service, to the post of Chief Conservator of Forest w.e.f. 01.01.2025. After the promotion, the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, GoI issued another Order dated 28.02.2025 transferring the petitioner who is from the AGMUT Cadre : 2006, from the State of Arunachal Pradesh to Dadra & Nagar Haveli and Daman & Diu [DNHⅅ]. Subsequent to the Order dated 28.02.2025, the petitioner was still working in the State of Arunachal Pradesh despite the promotion order and the transfer order. 4. The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, GoI had thereafter, wrote the Chief Secretary, Government of Arunachal Pradesh that the transferred officer, that is, the petitioner should be considered stand relieved to joint his new place of posting with effect from the date of issuance of the Order dated 28.02.2025. It was on 16.04.2025, the Department of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of Arunachal Pradesh passed an Order under the hand of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest & Head of Forest Force, Nagaland whereby the petitioner had been relieved from the post of Conservator of Forest & Field Director, Namdapha National Park & Tiger Reserve, Miao, which post he was holding under the Department of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of Arunachal Pradesh. It was mentioned in the Order dated 16.04.2025 that the relieving order would take effect from 17.04.2025 to enable the petitioner to join the DNHⅅ in the joint AGMUT Cadre on promotion. 5. It was mentioned in the Order dated 16.04.2025 that the relieving order would take effect from 17.04.2025 to enable the petitioner to join the DNHⅅ in the joint AGMUT Cadre on promotion. 5. The said Order dated 16.04.2025 was initially put to challenge by the petitioner before this Court by way of a writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 179/2025. On 22.04.2025, notice was issued to the respondents with an observation that the petitioner could file a representation before the authorities highlighting his difficulties regarding his immediate release. On the interim prayer, the Court in its Order dated 22.04.2025, had observed that the prayer for interim relief was not tenable. Finally, when the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 179/2025 was listed on 28.05.2025, the Court having regard to the text and tenor of the relieving Order dated 16.04.2025, observed that since the petitioner is an All India Service Officer, he should raise his service related grievances before the jurisdictional Central Administrative Tribunal [CAT] observing that this Court is not the court of first instance for the petitioner to raise his service related grievances. By an Order dated 28.05.2025, the petitioner was permitted to withdraw the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 179/2025 with a liberty to approach the appropriate forum, if so advised. 6. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the CAT, Guwahati Bench by way of an original application, O.A. no. 045/138/2025. In O.A. no. 045/138/2025, the petitioner assailed the Order dated 28.02.2025, which was not challenged in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 179/2025, and the Order dated 16.04.2025 whereby the petitioner was relieved from the State of Arunachal Pradesh with effect from 17.04.2025. In the meantime, as another officer belonging to the IFS has been transferred and posted as the Conservator of Forest & Field Director, Namdapha National Park & Tiger Reserve, Miao, the post the petitioner was holding earlier to 28.02.2025. The petitioner was found occupying the official quarter allotted to him which is required to be vacated for occupation of the transferred officer. 7. The petitioner was found occupying the official quarter allotted to him which is required to be vacated for occupation of the transferred officer. 7. By an Order dated 22.08.2025, the Office of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Miao, Changlang District directed the petitioner to vacate the official quarter allotted for the officer holding the post of Conservator of Forest & Field Director, Namdapha National Park & Tiger Reserve, Miao within seven days therefrom as the petitioner was found keeping the said official quarter under lock and key with some important files, keys of three nos. of Government vehicles and other official items in custody. It is this Order dated 22.08.2025 which has been assailed in this writ petition apart from the Order dated 01.08.2025 passed by the CAT, Guwahati Bench in O.A. no. 045/138/2025. 8. The original application, O.A. no. 045/138/2025 was decided by an Order dated 01.08.2025. The main grievance raised by the petitioner before the learned CAT, as also before this Court now, was to the effect that the post which the petitioner had been transferred was held by another officer belonging to the IFS, who has been impleaded herein as the respondent no. 6. The other officer was transferred to the DNHⅅ by an Order dated 28.08.2024. The learned Tribunal after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the materials brought on record, disposed of the original application with the following observations and directions :- 9. Thus in the instant case, the order issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change are in order. It is clear that the cadre controlling authority is the MoEF&CC who is the concerned authority to bring all the relevant orders of transfer/posting in respect of the IFS Officers and in respect of the two IFS officers’ i.e. the present applicant, Shri Vineet Kumar Jawal and Shri Sanjay K. Waradkar, the private respondent no. 5, are to be posted in the Union Territory of Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Daman and Diu under the cadre post and State Deputation Reserve [SDR] respectively. 10. Respondents are directed to post the two IFS officers as per their orders dated 28.08.2024 and 28.02.2025 in respect of Shri Sanjay K. Waradkar, the private respondent no. 5, and the applicant Shri Vineet Kumar Jawal in their respective positions as in the State Deputation Reserve of DNH? and in the cadre position of CCF, DNH? 10. Respondents are directed to post the two IFS officers as per their orders dated 28.08.2024 and 28.02.2025 in respect of Shri Sanjay K. Waradkar, the private respondent no. 5, and the applicant Shri Vineet Kumar Jawal in their respective positions as in the State Deputation Reserve of DNH? and in the cadre position of CCF, DNH? respectively with immediate effect and they are to join their respective positions accordingly. The respondent authority/competent authority is also hereby directed to place Shri Sanjay K. Waradkar, IFS against SDR in any position as per SDR norms suitable for his rang. 9. From the above excerpts, it is clear that the petitioner after promotion to the post of Chief Conservator of Forest in the AGMUT Cadre, has been transferred to the Union Territory of DNHⅅ in a cadre post whereas the other IFS officer impleaded herein as the respondent no. 6, has been posted in a post meant for State Deputation Reserve [SDR]. The respondent authorities have been directed to post the two IFS officers, that is, the petitioner and the respondent no. 6 in the cadre post and the State Deputation Reserve [SDR] post respectively with immediate effect and they have to join their respective positions accordingly. The respondent authorities are further directed to place the other IFS officer, that is, the respondent no. 6 against State Deputation Reserve [SDR] in any position as per SDR norms suitable to for his rank. 10. It is clear that petitioner in deference to such observations and directions made by the CAT in its Order dated 01.08.2025 passed in O.A. no. 045/138/2025, is required to report at DNHⅅ in order to join in the cadre post of Conservator of Forest to which he was promoted on 30.12.2024 with immediate effect. Despite such direction, the petitioner is still in the State of Arunachal Pradesh after the relieving Order dated 16.04.2025 occupying the official quarter allotted to the CF & Field Director, Namdapha National Park & Tiger Reserve, Miao unauthorisedly beyond 17.04.2025. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the other IFS Officer who has been transferred to DNHⅅ is presently occupying the post whereto the petitioner has been transferred cannot be entertained in this writ petition. If there is any violation of the CAT’s direction the petitioner has appropriate remedy available alleging disobedience of the direction given by the CAT. If there is any violation of the CAT’s direction the petitioner has appropriate remedy available alleging disobedience of the direction given by the CAT. After the relieving Order dated 16.04.2025, the petitioner’s stay in the State of Arunachal Pradesh occupying an Official Quarter allotted to the Conservator of Forest Field Director, Namdapha National Park & Tiger Reserve, Miao is found to be unauthorised. After the promotion order dated 30.12.2024, the transfer order dated 28.02.2025 and the relieving Order dated 16.04.2025, which are not interfered with when challenged, the petitioner is under obligation to report for joining in DNH&DD. In such view of the matter, we do not find any reason to direct the State respondent authorities not to enforce the Order dated 28.02.2025. 11. In the light of the discussions made above, the writ petition is found to be bereft of any merits and is liable to be dismissed. Though the respondent no. 6 is yet to be served with notice, in view of the discussions made above and for the reasons assigned herein, such service of notice upon him is found not necessary. 12. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to cost.