Authorities must pass reasoned orders on permanent transfer requests independently of temporary transfer tenure expirations.

The applicant, a Junior Engineer (JE) in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL), was initially transferred from the Punjab Telecom Circle to Varanasi under Rule-9 (temporary transfer) of the BSNL Transfer Policy

During this tenure, the applicant sought a permanent transfer to Varanasi under Rule-8 on "spouse grounds," citing his wife’s employment in Varanasi and her advanced stage of pregnancy

Despite previous directions from the Tribunal and the Hon’ble High Court to consider his representation sympathetically, the respondent authority issued a speaking order on 16.03.2026 and relieving orders on 17.12.2025 and 26.12.2025, rejecting his request primarily because his temporary tenure under Rule-9 had expired

The applicant challenged these orders as arbitrary and mechanical, seeking a permanent transfer or an extension of his stay until August 2026 on humanitarian grounds

1. Whether the respondents’ rejection of the applicant’s request for permanent transfer was legally sustainable, given the alleged failure to consider Rule-8 spouse grounds and humanitarian exigencies

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to interim protection and a reconsideration of his posting at Varanasi in light of the High Court's observations regarding his spouse's medical condition

Rule-8 of the BSNL Transfer Policy, which governs permanent inter-circle transfers on request, including Clause 8.5 (allowing relaxation of service conditions in deserving cases) and Clause 8.7 (consequences of inter-unit transfers)

Rule-9 regarding temporary transfers

S.C. Saxena v. Union of India (2006) 9 SCC 583, which generally requires an employee to join a transferred post before ventilating grievances, though it distinguished the present case based on specific judicial liberty granted by the High Court

The Tribunal observed that the impugned speaking order was passed "in a mechanical manner," focusing solely on the expiration of the applicant’s temporary tenure under Rule-9

The court found that the competent authority failed to address the applicant’s long-pending request for permanent transfer under Rule-8 on spouse grounds, despite Rule 8.5 expressly contemplating relaxations for "deserving cases"

The Tribunal highlighted that the High Court, in Writ-A No. 2631 of 2026, had specifically granted the applicant liberty to seek an extension until August 2026 due to his wife's pregnancy

Consequently, the Tribunal reasoned that BSNL's failure to examine the feasibility of Rule-8 transfer or the medical exigencies constituted a lack of due application of mind, necessitating a fresh, reasoned consideration

The court ordered the respondents to pass a reasoned and speaking order within three months

Additionally, the respondents were directed to evaluate the feasibility of allowing the applicant to remain in Varanasi until August 2026 on humanitarian grounds

Crucially, the Tribunal ordered that no coercive action be taken against the applicant until the reconsideration process is complete