Facts
The applicant, a Medical Officer with the Employees' State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) since 2010, was posted as Medical Vigilance Officer (MVO) at the Regional Office, Jammu, on 01.03.2024 while completing study leave
Source reference: p.3She formally joined the MVO post on 27.03.2025
Source reference: p.3On 31.05.2025—approximately two months after joining—she was transferred to ESIC Medical College, Ludhiana
Source reference: p.3-4The applicant challenged this order, asserting that the post of MVO is a "sensitive/administrative" post which, under the ESIC Transfer Policy dated 16.12.2024, carries a minimum tenure of three years
Source reference: p.2, 5The respondents contended that transfer is an incidence of service, governed by administrative exigencies, and that the applicant’s post-graduate qualification necessitated her deployment to a medical college
Source reference: p.4, 9Issues
1. Whether the transfer order dated 31.05.2025 was legally sustainable given it was issued within two months of the applicant joining a post with a prescribed three-year tenure under the Transfer Policy
Source reference: p.112. Whether the Court should interfere with an administrative transfer order when allegations of non-application of mind and violation of internal policy guidelines are raised
Source reference: p.11Law Applied
transfer is an inherent condition of service and not a vested right, as established in B. Varadha Rao v. State of Karnataka
Source reference: p.5even if a transfer transgresses administrative guidelines, it should not be lightly interfered with unless vitiated by mala fides or statutory violations (State of U.P. v. Goverdhan Lal)
Source reference: p.7transfer policies are intended to ensure transparency and fairness
Source reference: p.10ESIC Transfer Policy dated 16.12.2024, which prescribes a three-year tenure for administrative/sensitive posts like the MVO
Source reference: p.11Reasoning
The Tribunal observed that while the respondents have the prerogative to transfer employees for administrative exigencies, the applicant’s transfer occurred within only two months of her joining the MVO post
Source reference: p.11The Tribunal found evidence of non-application of mind because the impugned order incorrectly categorized the applicant’s current posting as "clinical" and misrepresented her previous place of posting
Source reference: p.11While the respondents argued that the transfer was linked to her post-graduate degree and study leave conditions, the Tribunal noted that the prescribed tenure for sensitive administrative posts under the 16.12.2024 policy was not adhered to
Source reference: p.11-12the factually incorrect descriptions in the transfer order suggested that relevant factors regarding the applicant's current tenure were not duly considered
Source reference: p.11Holding
The Tribunal disposed of the Original Application by directing the respondents to reconsider the transfer
the respondents must review the transfer order dated 31.05.2025 in light of the Transfer Policy dated 16.12.2024, specifically concerning the tenure for sensitive posts
Source reference: p.12The respondents were ordered to pass a reasoned and speaking order within eight weeks of receiving the judgment
Source reference: p.12Original Court PDF
DR MEENAKSHI SHARMAvsEMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION (ESIC)
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in