Administrative authorities must decide transfer representations through reasoned, speaking orders addressing specific individual grievances.

The applicant, an Examiner of Patents & Designs (Group ‘A’) posted in New Delhi, challenged a transfer order dated 09.01.2026, which moved him to Mumbai.

The applicant sought to quash the transfer and the subsequent rejection of his representations dated 17.02.2026 and 08.04.2026.

He contended that the transfer violated the Revised Transfer Policy dated 04.07.2025, specifically regarding the "spousal posting" guideline (his wife is permanently posted in Delhi) and the "rotational transfer" policy, which mandates transfers in descending order of stay (tenure).

Despite his representation on medical and personal grounds, the respondents issued a common, "mechanical" rejection order for 27 employees and relieved him from his Delhi post on 13.04.2026.

1. Whether the transfer order and the subsequent rejection of the applicant’s representation were arbitrary, non-speaking, and in violation of the Revised Transfer Policy and DoP&T guidelines.

2. Whether the administrative authority is required to pass a reasoned and speaking order addressing specific individual grievances when disposing of representations against transfers.

Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985.

The respondents' Revised Transfer Policy dated 04.07.2025.

Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar, holding that courts should not interfere with transfers made in public interest unless they violate mandatory statutory rules or are mala fide.

Union of India v. S.L. Abbas, which clarified that transfer guidelines do not confer legally enforceable rights but must be kept in mind by authorities.

Bank of India v. Jagjit Singh Mehta, establishing that while spouse posting should be enabled as far as practicable, it is not an absolute right and remains subject to administrative exigencies.

The Tribunal acknowledged the administrative prerogative to effect transfers for manpower rationalization and organizational efficiency.

However, it observed that the respondents’ rejection order was "mechanical" and "non-speaking," failing to address the specific points raised in the applicant’s representation, such as spouse posting and medical grounds.

The Tribunal reasoned that while guidelines are not strictly enforceable, administrative sensitivity toward individual difficulties is essential to maintain employee morale, which directly impacts public service delivery.

The court found that disposing of representations in a common, summary manner for senior officers without assigned reasons constitutes a failure of administrative duty.

Consequently, the lack of a reasoned response necessitated judicial intervention to ensure fair consideration.

It directed the respondents to reconsider the applicant’s representation afresh, adhering to policy guidelines and Supreme Court precedents, and to pass a reasoned and speaking order within 15 days.

The Tribunal further ordered that the applicant be allowed to remain at his Delhi posting until the fresh order is passed.

The O.A. was disposed of at the admission stage.