A transferee cannot be required to join before challenging a transfer when no opportunity to join existed.

The petitioner, an employee of the Employees’ State Insurance Corporation (ESIC), challenged her transfer from ESIC Headquarters to the ESIC Regional Office, Ahmedabad, by order dated 10 April 2026.

She had raised grounds relating to her spouse’s medical condition and employment, her own health, proximity to superannuation, caregiving responsibilities, and alleged disparate treatment of similarly situated employees.

In earlier proceedings, the Central Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) had directed the respondents to decide her representation by a reasoned and speaking order.

The respondents rejected the representation on 16 June 2026 and relieved her from Headquarters on 17 June 2026.

The petitioner approached the Tribunal on 18 June 2026.

The Tribunal rejected the challenge to the transfer and relieving orders, while granting liberty to file a fresh representation after joining at Ahmedabad.

The petitioner challenged the Tribunal’s order dated 11 August 2026 before the Delhi High Court.

The Court considered the settled principle stated in S.C. Saxena v. Union of India, (2006) 9 SCC 583, that a government servant ordinarily must comply with a transfer order and join at the transferred place before pursuing a representation or challenge; the practice of refusing to join and directly resorting to litigation is generally impermissible.

The Court also proceeded on the requirement that an administrative decision rejecting an employee’s representation must reflect genuine and reasoned consideration of the relevant grounds, particularly where the Tribunal had directed disposal by a reasoned and speaking order.

The petitioner’s representation was required to be considered under the applicable ESIC Transfer Policy dated 18 December 2024 and relevant DoPT Office Memoranda.

The High Court found that the Tribunal’s discussion of the petitioner’s grounds was favourable to her, observing that her claims concerning her spouse, health, caregiving responsibilities, and alleged discrimination deserved genuine consideration; however, the Tribunal rejected the challenge to the transfer without providing reasons.

Although the Tribunal appeared to rely on S.C. Saxena, the High Court held that the principle could not, on the facts, justify dismissal of the challenge because the petitioner had no meaningful opportunity to join at Ahmedabad before approaching the Tribunal.

The representation was rejected on 16 June 2026, she was relieved on 17 June 2026, and she filed the original application on 18 June 2026.

Thus, unlike a case where an employee deliberately refuses to join and then litigates, the petitioner had acted immediately after the rejection and relieving orders.

The respondents also fairly agreed that the matter could be remanded for consideration on merits.

OA 2274/2026 was remanded to the Tribunal for de novo consideration on merits, uninfluenced by the quashed order.

The respondents were directed to file their response within one week, with the petitioner permitted to file a rejoinder within the following week.

The parties were directed to appear before the Tribunal on 8 September 2026, without seeking an adjournment.

Pending the Tribunal’s decision, operation of the petitioner’s transfer order was stayed and kept in abeyance.