Administrative authorities must address individual grievances via reasoned and speaking orders when deciding transfer representations.

The Applicant, an Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs (Group ‘A’) in New Delhi, challenged a transfer order dated 09.01.2026 and a rejection of representation dated 17.02.2026, which directed his relocation to Chennai/Mumbai

The Applicant sought retention in Delhi on two primary grounds: first, that his wife is a Central Government employee posted in Delhi, invoking the "spouse-posting" guidelines; and second, that his wife was in the final stage of pregnancy requiring medical support

He further alleged that the Respondents violated the Revised Transfer Policy dated 04.07.2025 by failing to follow rotational transfer seniority

Despite his representation, the Respondents issued a common, non-speaking order on 17.02.2026 rejecting the requests of 27 employees, including the Applicant, citing "administrative exigency"

The Applicant was relieved of his duties on 13.04.2026 during the pendency of the proceedings

1. Whether the impugned transfer and the subsequent rejection of the Applicant’s representation were arbitrary, mechanical, and in violation of the Revised Transfer Policy and DoP&T guidelines regarding spouse postings

2. Whether the Respondents’ failure to pass a reasoned and speaking order addressing the Applicant’s specific individual hardships warrants judicial interference

The Tribunal recognized the settled principle that transfer is an incident of service and an administrative prerogative, as established in Mrs. Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar

The Tribunal recognized the settled principle that transfer is an incident of service and an administrative prerogative, as established in Gujarat Electricity Board v. Atmaram Sungomal Poshani

It noted that guidelines for spouse-posting do not confer an indefeasible legal right but must be considered alongside administrative needs, per Bank of India v. Jagjit Singh Mehta

administrative authorities must act fairly and sensitively; a mechanical rejection of a representation without assigning specific reasons constitutes an arbitrary exercise of power

The Tribunal found that the Respondents’ common rejection order for 27 different employees was "mechanical" because it failed to address the unique individual grievances raised by the Applicant, such as his wife's medical condition and his status under the spouse-posting policy

While the Tribunal acknowledged the administration's right to rationalize manpower for efficiency, it held that public interest is not served by ignoring the morale of senior officers

The Tribunal reasoned that administrative exigencies should not be treated in isolation from the sensitive handling of individual difficulties

By failing to provide a reasoned and speaking order, the Respondents failed to demonstrate a fair consideration of the Applicant’s case

It directed the Respondents to reconsider the Applicant's representation afresh, adhering to Supreme Court precedents and Departmental/DoP&T guidelines. The Respondents were ordered to pass a reasoned and speaking order within 15 days of receiving the judgment. Until such order is passed, the Applicant is permitted to remain at his original place of posting in New Delhi