Ms. Anju Ahuja vs Union Of India And Ors

$~61
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
# CNR No. DLHC010383582026
+ W.P.(C) 11912/2026 and CM APPLs. 55217/2026 and
55218/2026

MS. ANJU AHUJA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. M.D. Jangra, Advocate

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Siddharth, Standing
Counsel for ESIC with Ms. Himanshi
Girdhar and Mr. Deepanshu Grover,
Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
% 24.08.2026


1. This writ petition challenges order dated 11 August 2026 passed
1
by the Central Administrative Tribunal in OA 2274/2026.

2. The OA assailed order dated 10 April 2026, transferring the
petitioner from ESIC Headquarters to the ESIC Regional Office at
Ahmedabad.


3. Mr. Jangra, learned counsel for the petitioner had, on 18 August
2026, advanced a submission that, on 28 July 2026 when the OA was
heard by the Tribunal, the matter was listed only for hearing on

1
“the Tribunal”, hereinafter
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:02.09.2026
17:20:07
W.P.(C) 11912/2026 Page 1 of 5

interim relief. We had, therefore, called upon Mr. Jangra to place the
orders of the Tribunal passed in the OA on record.

4. We have perused the orders. There appears to be some
ambiguity in the matter as there is an earlier order dated 23 June 2026
directing that the OA be listed for hearing on interim relief on 9 July
2026 and, thereafter, on 20 July 2026, the Tribunal has directed the
OA to be listed.

5. At the same time, it is also recorded in the impugned order that
no detailed counter affidavit was filed by the respondents in the OA
and only a response to interim relief was filed.

6. Instead of entering into this controversy, we have heard Mr.
Jangra on the merits of the matter. We deem it appropriate to
reproduce paras 13 to 15 of the impugned order thus:

“13. At the same time, the earlier order of this Tribunal in O.A.
No. 1465/2026 dated 08.04.2026 required the respondents to
dispose of the applicant's representation by a reasoned and
speaking. Having perused the order dated 16.06.2026 (Annexure
A-2), and noting that only a reply to interim relief and no detailed
counter has been filed, we are of the view that the applicant's
specific grounds namely, her spouse's medical condition and
employment, her own health and proximity to superannuation, her
caregiving responsibilities, and the alleged disparate treatment
similarly situated Social Security Officers deserve a genuine and
considered application of mind, which is not fully reflected in the
impugned order of rejection.

14. At the same time, the settled position, reiterated in S.C.
2
Saxena v. Union of India , is that a Government servant must first
comply with the order of transfer and join at the transferred place,
and thereafter pursue his or her representation; the tendency of not

2
(2006) 9 SCC 583
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:02.09.2026
17:20:07
W.P.(C) 11912/2026 Page 2 of 5

reporting at the place of posting and instead resorting to litigation
cannot be countenanced.

15. In view of the foregoing, this Original Application is
disposed of with the following directions:

(i) The challenge to the impugned transfer order dated
10.04.2026 (Annexure A-1) and the relieving order dated
17.06.2026 (Annexure A-3) is rejected, and the applicant
shall report for duty at Regional Office, Ahmedabad, as
directed;

(ii) The applicant is granted liberty to submit a fresh,
consolidated representation, along with supporting medical
and other documents, within two weeks of joining, setting
out her grounds of spouse co-location, health, caregiving
obligations and alleged discrimination.

(iii) The respondents shall consider and decide such
representation strictly in accordance with the Transfer
Policy dated 18.12.2024 and the applicable DoPT Office
Memoranda, by a reasoned and speaking order, within eight
weeks of its receipt, and shall communicate the decision to
the applicant;

(iv) It is made clear that this Tribunal has expressed no
opinion on the merits of the applicant's grounds, which
shall be considered uninfluenced by any observation made
therein.”

7. A reading of paras 13 to 15 of the impugned order make it clear
that, while para 13 of the impugned order is clearly in favour of the
petitioner, the Tribunal has rejected the challenge to the transfer order
providing no reasons whatsoever for the rejection. One can only
surmise that the rejection is relatable to the observations in para 14 of
the judgment in which the Tribunal has, relying on the judgment of
the Supreme Court in S.C. Saxena , observed that a transferee is
required to join at the place of transfer before challenging the transfer
order. As this appears to be the sole basis of the rejection of the
petitioner’s challenge to his transfer order, we have to examine
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:02.09.2026
17:20:07
W.P.(C) 11912/2026 Page 3 of 5

whether, prima facie , this reason can sustain.

8. The order of transfer of the petitioner was passed on 10 April
2026. The petitioner represented against the transfer order on the very
same day and followed up the representation with OA 1465/2026
before the Tribunal. By order dated 8 April 2026, the Tribunal
directed that the petitioner’s representation be decided on merits by a
reasoned and speaking order. That order came to be passed by the
respondent on 16 June 2026. On the very next day, i.e. on 17 June
2026, the petitioner was relieved from his posting. The petitioner
approached the Tribunal on the next day i.e. on 18 June 2026 and on
19 June 2026, the matter was taken up by the Tribunal for hearing.

9. It is clear, therefore, that the petitioner had no opportunity to
join at the place of posting before filing the OA. At the cost of
repetition, we may note that the order rejecting the petitioner’s
representation was passed on 16 June 2026. The petitioner was
relieved on the very next day i.e. 17 June 2026 and the petitioner filed
OA before the Tribunal on 18 June 2026. There was, therefore, we
reiterate, no opportunity for the petitioner to join at the place of
transfer before filing the OA.

10. We may note that learned counsel for the respondent, in
response to a suggestion from the Bench in that regard, fairly acceded
to the OA being disposed of by setting aside the impugned order and
remanding the OA for a decision to the Tribunal for consideration on
merits.

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:02.09.2026
17:20:07
W.P.(C) 11912/2026 Page 4 of 5

11. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 11 August 2026 is
quashed and set aside.

12. OA 2274/2026 is remanded for consideration by the Tribunal de
novo on merits uninfluenced by the order dated 11 August 2026. We
direct the respondents to positively file its response to the OA within
one week from today with advance copy to learned counsel for the
petitioner who may file rejoinder thereto, if any, within a week
thereof. Both sides would appear before the Tribunal for hearing in the
OA on 8 September 2026. Neither side would be entitled to seek
adjournment on the said date.

13. As this is a transfer matter, we request the Tribunal to take up
the matter on the date fixed by us and hear the parties and pass an
order in the OA as expeditiously as possible thereafter.

14. Till the passing of the order by the Tribunal in the OA, the
operation of the order of transfer of the petitioner would remain in
abeyance.

15. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent.


C.HARI SHANKAR, J.

VINOD KUMAR, J.
AUGUST 24, 2026 /yg
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:02.09.2026
17:20:07
W.P.(C) 11912/2026 Page 5 of 5