Authorities must reconsider a widow’s transfer representation under policy by reasoned order, maintaining status quo meanwhile.

The applicant, Smt. Monika Dutta, a Senior Auditor in the Office of the Principal Controller of Accounts (Factories), challenged Office Order No. X/10050/Seniority/2025/TR-401 to 592 dated 27 February 2026, by which she was transferred to Tezpur.

She contended that she had preferred Guwahati, Tezpur and Kolkata as possible places of posting and relied upon the respondents’ Transfer Policy dated 28 March 2014, particularly paragraph 8(vi), which contemplated exemption from transfer for widows and divorcees, subject to the applicable conditions.

She made repeated representations seeking retention at her existing place of posting or transfer to Guwahati. Those representations were rejected by orders dated 13 April 2026 and 28 July 2026, which she alleged were non-speaking.

The Original Application was filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking quashing of the transfer and rejection orders and reconsideration of her case under the Transfer Policy.

Whether the applicant’s transfer to Tezpur dated 27 February 2026 was liable to be quashed for non-consideration of her preferences and the respondents’ Transfer Policy dated 28 March 2014?

Whether the rejection orders dated 13 April 2026 and 28 July 2026 required reconsideration for being non-speaking and for allegedly failing to address the applicant’s claim under paragraph 8(vi) of the Transfer Policy?

Whether the competent authority should reconsider the applicant’s representation while maintaining status quo pending such decision?

The Tribunal exercised jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which permits an aggrieved government employee to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal for redressal of service-related grievances.

The Tribunal applied the respondents’ Transfer Policy dated 28 March 2014, specifically paragraph 8(vi), concerning exemption from transfer for widows and divorcees, subject to the policy’s terms and the respondents’ maintenance of the relevant status quo.

It further required the competent authority to consider the representation and issue a reasoned and speaking order, reflecting the general administrative-law requirement that relevant grounds raised by an affected employee must be considered and adequately addressed.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant’s transfer was an administrative matter and that she had relied on the Transfer Policy, including the provision applicable to widows and divorcees.

Although the applicant initially sought quashing of the transfer, her counsel ultimately stated that reconsideration of her case for posting at Guwahati would suffice.

The respondents also expressed no objection to reconsideration by the competent authority, while submitting that the applicant’s case could be considered after she joined at Tezpur.

In these circumstances, the Tribunal did not adjudicate the merits of the transfer, the applicant’s entitlement to Guwahati, or the ultimate applicability of paragraph 8(vi).

Instead, it treated the applicant’s representation dated 23 July 2026, along with the Original Application, as requiring consideration by the competent authority under the Transfer Policy and directed that the decision be communicated through a reasoned and speaking order.

The competent respondent authority or other competent authority was directed to consider the applicant’s representation dated 23 July 2026, treating the Original Application as part of it, in light of the Transfer Policy dated 28 March 2014, particularly paragraph 8(vi), and to pass and communicate a reasoned and speaking order within three weeks of receiving the Tribunal’s order.

The respondents were directed to maintain status quo concerning the applicant until communication of that decision.

All merits were expressly left open, and there was no order as to costs.