Association office-bearers’ transfer immunity is not absolute and remains subject to administrative exigencies.

BSNL transferred Sunil Kumar Gupta from its Corporate Office in Delhi to the Gujarat Circle by an annual transfer order dated 2 May 2025.

Gupta, who had served in Delhi for nearly 25 years, challenged the transfer.

BSNL stated that the transfer formed part of a routine, nationwide exercise addressing administrative requirements and that Gupta had joined the Association as Assistant General Secretary shortly before the transfer order.

The Tribunal allowed Gupta’s application, treating Rule 10(A)(4) of the BSNL (Recognition of Executive Association) Rules, 2014 as conferring immunity from transfer during his tenure as an office-bearer.

BSNL challenged that decision before the High Court.

Whether Rule 10(A)(4) confers absolute immunity from transfer on the specified office-bearers of a Support Association.

Whether the Tribunal’s decision should stand when it had not considered Rule 16, the BSNL instructions on administrative exigencies, or BSNL’s justification for the transfer.

Rule 10(A)(4) provides a concession of immunity from transfer to the Association’s General Secretary, Assistant General Secretary and Financial Secretary or Treasurer during the recognition period, subject to the provision’s terms.

Rule 16 empowers BSNL management, in consultation with the recognised representative association, to dispense with or relax requirements of the Rules, subject to conditions.

The BSNL instructions dated 11 September 2020 state that transfer concessions are not guaranteed or claimable as of right and are subject to administrative exigencies; the BSNL clarification dated 24 December 2020 states that non-extension of immunity on that ground should be exceptional and supported by justification, with prior information to the relevant authorities.

The Court held that Rule 10(A)(4) does not create absolute immunity and that the concession is subject to administrative exigencies.

The Tribunal set aside the transfer solely on the basis of Gupta’s election as Assistant General Secretary and did not address Rule 16, the 2020 instructions, or BSNL’s administrative-exigency justification.

The High Court therefore considered the Tribunal’s premise of absolute immunity incorrect.

However, because the Tribunal had not assessed whether BSNL’s justification was substantial or justified, the High Court did not determine the merits of the transfer or finally resolve the parties’ remaining factual and legal disputes.

Gupta consented to a remand for fresh consideration.

With the respondent’s consent, it quashed the Tribunal’s order and remanded the application for de novo consideration, leaving all other questions of fact and law open.

It directed the parties to appear before the Tribunal on 6 October 2026, file written submissions and indexed authorities at least 48 hours beforehand, and seek no adjournment.

The writ petition was allowed to that extent, with no order as to costs.