Administrative transfer orders passed without considering personal grievances or providing reasoned speaking orders are legally unsustainable.

The applicant, an unmarried woman serving as an official in the Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks (CGPDTM), challenged a transfer order dated 08.12.2025, moving her from Delhi to Chennai

Following the order, she submitted a representation on 09.12.2025 citing personal hardships, including the care of her elderly, ailing father and her own medical condition (ruptured eardrum), which makes humid environments medically inadvisable

The respondents rejected her representation via a common, "mechanical" order on 20.01.2026 and relieved her from service on 13.04.2026

The applicant alleged that the transfer violated the "first-in-first-out" principle, disregarded DoPT caregiving guidelines, and failed to account for the fact that the office operates largely online

1. Whether the impugned transfer and relieving orders were arbitrary, non-speaking, and in violation of established transfer policies and DoPT guidelines

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to a fresh, individualized consideration of her personal and medical grievances

The Tribunal primarily relied on the principle that administrative authorities must exercise transfer powers fairly and pass reasoned, speaking orders when considering representations regarding personal hardships

It referenced established DoPT guidelines regarding caregiving responsibilities and medical conditions

Furthermore, the Tribunal applied the principle of parity, citing its previous decision in OA No. 1383/2026, which established that mechanical, common rejection orders for multiple employees' representations are legally unsustainable

The Tribunal found that the respondents had issued a "cryptic and non-reasoned" common order to reject the representations of several employees, failing to address the specific grounds raised by the applicant

It noted that while the applicant holds a transferable post with all-India liability, the administration is bound to consider "ground realities"—specifically that the office functions online—and the specific medical advice regarding the applicant’s eardrum and humidity

By failing to deal with the specific merits of the applicant’s medical and caregiving concerns, the respondents acted in a "pick-and-choose" manner that violated the "first-in-first-out" principle

Consequently, the Tribunal determined that the applicant deserved a fair, individualized reconsideration of her difficulties in line with judicial precedents and departmental instructions

The respondents were directed to reconsider the applicant’s representation afresh and pass a "reasoned and speaking order" within 15 days of receiving the judgment. The Tribunal further ordered that the applicant be permitted to continue at her current place of posting until such a decision is rendered