Authorities must objectively decide representations against transfer orders violating spouse-posting guidelines prior to implementation.

The applicant, a Social Security Officer (SSO) with the Employees’ State Insurance Corporation (ESIC), challenged a transfer order dated 10.04.2026, which moved him from Delhi to Durgapur, West Bengal

The applicant, who has served in Delhi-NCR since joining in 2008, contended that he had only spent two years at his current posting and was previously retained in Delhi on spouse grounds

His wife is employed as a Primary Teacher with the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), a non-transferable post

The applicant submitted a representation on 11.04.2026 seeking retention based on Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) instructions regarding spouse-ground postings and the ESIC Transfer Policy dated 19.12.2024, alleging the transfer was arbitrary and ignored available vacancies

1. Whether the impugned transfer order was in violation of the ESIC Transfer Policy and DoPT OMs regarding the posting of husband and wife at the same station

2. Whether the respondents are required to consider the applicant’s pending representation regarding personal hardships and spouse-ground retention before implementing the transfer

The court relied on the principle that transfer is an incidence of service and judicial interference is limited unless the order is mala fide or violates statutory provisions, as established in Union of India v. S.L. Abbas [para. 5, 10] and Namrata Verma v. State of U.P.

administrative authorities must consider government guidelines and personal hardships, particularly spouse-ground postings under DoPT OMs dated 30.09.2009

Under Rajendra Roy v. Union of India, personal difficulties are matters for departmental consideration

Director of School Education v. Karuppa Thevan suggests avoiding mid-academic year transfers

R.S. Chaudhary v. State of M.P. holds that the proper remedy for a policy violation is for the authority to objectively deal with the employee's representation

The Tribunal examined the applicant's claim that the transfer violated Clause 7.4 of the ESIC Transfer Policy and relevant DoPT OMs intended to keep spouses at the same station

While acknowledging the respondents' argument—based on S.L. Abbas—that guidelines do not confer an enforceable right [para. 5], the Tribunal noted that authorities are still obligated to exercise their power with objectivity and regard for established policies

The Tribunal found that since the applicant’s wife holds a non-transferable post and the applicant provides care for aged parents, these "personal hardships" necessitated a sympathetic departmental review

Following the precedent set in similar matters (e.g., Sugan Lal Meena v. ESIC), where the Tribunal directed the disposal of representations while maintaining the status quo, it determined that the applicant should not be relieved until his grievances were formally addressed

It directed the respondents to: (i) decide the applicant’s pending representation dated 11.04.2026 via a reasoned and speaking order [para. 14(i)]; (ii) permit the applicant to continue at his current posting in Delhi until the representation is decided [para. 14(ii)]; and (iii) in the event of an unfavorable decision, stay the implementation of the transfer for an additional fifteen days from the date of communication to allow the applicant further legal recourse

No order was made as to costs