Compliance with transfer orders is mandatory before seeking administrative or judicial redressal of grievances.

The applicants, long-term employees of BSNL in the UP West Circle (serving 23–25 years), applied for transfer to the BSNL Corporate Office (BSNLCO), New Delhi, via the Online Transfer Portal (OTP)

BSNL issued a transfer order on 07.06.2024 acceding to this request; however, the applicants were not relieved by the Circle Office to join BSNLCO for nearly a year

On 02.05.2025, the respondents issued a fresh impugned order transferring the applicants to the Gujarat Circle instead, citing the previous order as "unimplemented" and noting a staff shortage in Gujarat

The applicants challenged this as arbitrary, discriminatory, and a violation of the "legitimate expectation" principle and spouse-posting guidelines

Despite being relieved on 02.06.2025 and failing to secure an interim stay from the Tribunal, the applicants remained absent from their duties for approximately one year

1. Whether the transfer order dated 02.05.2025 and the consequent relieving order are vitiated by arbitrariness or violation of BSNL's internal transfer policy

2. Whether an employee has a vested right to remain at a station of choice or refuse to join a new place of posting during the pendency of a legal challenge

The court primarily applied the principle that transfer is an incidence of service and not a vested right, as established in Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar and Rajendra Singh v. State of U.P.

It relied on the doctrine that judicial review in transfer matters is limited to cases of mala fides, violation of statutory provisions, or lack of competence (Union of India v. S.L. Abbas)

Furthermore, the court applied the ruling in Tamil Nadu Agricultural University v. R Agila, which mandates that employees must join their new place of posting even while challenging a transfer order, and unauthorized absence during litigation does not entitle them to salary

The court also noted that while policy guidelines (like spouse-posting) should be considered, administrative exigencies remain paramount (Director of School Education v. O. Karuppa Thevan)

The Tribunal observed that BSNL exhibited arbitrariness by failing to implement its own 2024 transfer order and later citing "unimplemented orders" to redirect the applicants to a non-requested circle (Gujarat)

The court found inconsistencies in BSNL's claim of "staff shortage" in Gujarat, as other officers were simultaneously being transferred out of that circle

However, the court balanced this against the fact that the applicants had overstayed the 18-year circle tenure limit by serving 23–25 years in UP West and held All India transfer liability as Group B officers

Most significantly, the Tribunal condemned the applicants’ conduct in remaining unauthorizedly absent for a year after being relieved, noting that the absence of an interim stay required them to report for work at the new station first (S.C. Saxena v. Union of India)

However, the court upheld the necessity of the transfer, directing the applicants to immediately comply with the transfer orders dated 02.05.2025 and join their new place of posting in the Gujarat Circle

No order was made as to costs