Administrative authorities must decide representations alleging transfer policy violations via reasoned orders before implementing transfers.

The applicant, a Joint Director at the ESIC Regional Office in Faridabad, challenged a transfer order dated 02.04.2026, which moved him to ESIC Medical College and Hospital, Hyderabad

The applicant had joined his current post on 31.12.2024 following a promotion from Jaipur, meaning he had completed only one year and three months of service at the Faridabad station

He contended that the transfer violated the Transfer Policy dated 19.12.2024, which prescribes a minimum tenure of three years, and that the respondents ignored 12 vacant posts in the Delhi-NCR region

The applicant submitted a representation on 05.04.2026 citing personal hardships, including the care of his 93-year-old mother and his son's education

The respondents argued that the applicant had spent nearly 21 years in the Delhi-NCR region and that transfer guidelines do not create enforceable rights

1. Whether the impugned transfer order was issued in violation of the prescribed minimum tenure and procedures established under the Transfer Policy dated 19.12.2024 and Circular dated 11.11.2025

2. Whether the respondents are legally obligated to consider the applicant's representation regarding personal hardships and available vacancies before implementing the transfer

The court primarily applied the principles governing administrative transfers as established in Union of India v. S.L. Abbas (1993), which holds that transfer guidelines do not confer enforceable rights unless the order is mala fide or violates statutory mandates

This was read alongside Namrata Verma v. State of U.P. (2021), affirming that transfer is an incidence of service and courts should generally not interfere unless statutory provisions are breached

Relying on Rajendra Roy v. Union of India (1993) and R.S. Chaudhary v. State of M.P. (2007), the court noted that when a transfer policy is allegedly violated or personal hardships are cited, the proper remedy is for the administration to objectively consider the employee's representation

The Tribunal examined the applicant’s grievance that he was being moved prematurely (after 1.3 years instead of the policy-mandated 3 years) without the opportunity to exercise station options

While acknowledging the respondents' stance that the applicant had a long history in Delhi-NCR, the Tribunal found that the existence of 12 vacancies in the region and the specific health and educational hardships cited by the applicant warranted administrative review

The Tribunal reasoned that while it should not typically interfere with the employer's prerogative to transfer, the department is reasonably expected to decide on pending representations with objectivity and in light of its own policy guidelines

Therefore, rather than quashing the order outright, the Tribunal determined that the balance of justice required a stay on the transfer pending a reasoned decision by the respondents

(i) the respondents must decide on the applicant’s representation dated 05.04.2026 through a reasoned and speaking order

(ii) the transfer order dated 02.04.2026 shall not be implemented, and the applicant shall remain at his current post until the representation is decided

(iii) if the decision is adverse to the applicant, the transfer shall not be implemented for an additional fifteen days from the date of communication to allow the applicant further recourse

No order as to costs was made