Authority Directed to Decide Representation Against Transfer on Medical Grounds with Protection from Coercive Action

The petitioner, an Assistant Grade-II, was promoted to Assistant Grade-I via an order dated 25.03.2026

While 37 other promoted employees were accommodated in their current offices, the petitioner was transferred from his posting at C.E. (Gen.) ABVTPS, Marwa to the office of S.E. (Civil) CMDC, Gharghoda

The petitioner challenged this transfer on medical grounds, citing an MRI report dated 04.02.2026 that revealed a spine ailment involving desiccated inter-vertebral discs at L3-L4 and L4-L5

He contended that the necessary expert medical treatment would be unavailable at the new place of posting and that the condition might deteriorate if not treated timely

The petitioner submitted a representation to Respondent No. 2, which remained pending at the time of filing the writ petition

1. Whether the respondent authority should be directed to consider and decide upon the petitioner’s pending representation regarding his transfer on medical grounds within a specific timeframe?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to interim protection from coercive measures pending the decision on his representation?

The Court applied the principles of administrative law governing the judicial review of transfer orders under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

It emphasized the obligation of administrative authorities to consider an employee’s grievances—specifically those involving documented medical hardships—through a formal representation process

The court relied on the evidentiary value of medical diagnostic reports (MRI) to justify a direction for administrative reconsideration

The Court examined the petitioner’s medical records, specifically the MRI report dated 04.02.2026, which confirmed the existence of a significant spinal condition

The Court noted the petitioner's argument regarding the potential lack of specialist care at the new posting and the risk of physical deterioration

While the respondents initially opposed the petition's submissions, they conceded to a direction for the timely disposal of the pending representation

The Court did not adjudicate on the merits of the transfer itself but focused on the procedural necessity of the respondent authority exercising its discretion to address the petitioner’s health concerns

By setting a three-week deadline, the Court ensured that the petitioner’s medical exigencies were balanced against administrative requirements

The Court granted the petitioner one week to submit additional medical reports and documents

Crucially, the Court ordered that no coercive steps be taken against the petitioner regarding his transfer until the representation is decided