Authority Directed to Reconsider Transfer Representation in Light of Vacancy Created by Subsequent Employee Departure

The applicant, an MRLCC in the Electricity Department of the Andaman and Nicobar Administration, was transferred from Sri Vijaya Puram (Port Blair) to Rangat upon promotion.

The applicant previously challenged this in O.A./351/0632/2026, which the Tribunal disposed of on 16.04.2026, directing the respondents to consider his representation.

The respondents issued a speaking order on 29.04.2026 rejecting his request for retention.

The applicant filed the present O.A. seeking to quash the speaking order, citing his own medical condition and the need to care for his elderly, ailing parents (aged 85 and 74).

During the proceedings, the applicant’s counsel noted a new development: a vacancy had arisen in Port Blair because a private respondent (Smt. Sushma Mishra) was transferred to New Delhi.

1. Whether the speaking order dated 29.04.2026, which rejected the applicant's retention at Port Blair, requires judicial interference in light of subsequent clerical vacancies.

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to a re-consideration of his transfer based on the medical grounds of his dependents and the Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT) OM dated 08.10.2018.

Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which governs the applications for redressal of grievances.

Government of India, DoPT Office Memorandum dated 08.10.2018, which provides guidelines for the posting of government employees who are caregivers to disabled or elderly parents.

The principle of administrative review, allowing the executive authority to re-examine transfer orders based on "changed circumstances" and "new developments".

The Tribunal did not rule on the merits of the transfer or the legality of the speaking order. Instead, it focused on the procedural fairness of the administrative process.

The court noted the applicant's contention that a vacancy had recently opened in Port Blair due to the exit of another employee, Smt. Sushma Mishra.

The court reasoned that since this vacancy emerged after the initial speaking order was issued, the respondent authorities should have the opportunity to re-evaluate the applicant's necessity for retention against the available post.

The analysis implies that while transfer is an exigency of service, administrative authorities must consider humane grounds (medical needs and caregiver status) when a viable vacancy exists to accommodate such requests.

The respondents are directed to re-consider the applicant's case specifically in light of the "new development" regarding the vacancy at Port Blair within a period of four weeks from the date of the new representation. The prayer to quash the transfer order was not immediately granted, pending this administrative re-consideration.