Court orders status quo on transfer pending reconsideration of medical grounds and adherence to Transfer Policy.

The applicant, a 56-year-old employee posted at High School Atholi Girls, challenged the transfer order dated 02.08.2025

Following a previous Tribunal order in O.A. No. 1170/2025, Respondent No. 2 issued a fresh order (CEO/K/Legal/2025/16271-77) dated 06.09.2025 rejecting the applicant's representation against the transfer

The rejection was based on the absence of a medical certificate from a formal medical board and the assertion that the transfer was necessitated by administrative and academic interests

The applicant sought quashing of the transfer and rejection orders, a direction for medical-based retention, and the release of unpaid salary for September 2025

1. Whether the respondents’ rejection of the applicant’s representation for retention on medical grounds was legally sustainable

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to the release of salary for the period duties were actually performed

The court applied Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which empowers the Tribunal to hear grievances regarding conditions of service

It further relied upon the "Transfer Policy" governing government employees in the Union Territory, emphasizing that transfers must balance administrative exigency with legitimate personal hardships such as health conditions

The court also invoked the principle of quantum meruit regarding the release of "due and admissible salary" for periods of actual service rendered

The Tribunal noted the applicant’s willingness to narrow the scope of the prayer to a direction for reconsideration based on his medical condition

While the respondents argued the transfer was in the "interest of administration," the Tribunal found that the applicant's medical condition required a fresh evaluation in accordance with the prevailing Transfer Policy

The court determined that rather than adjudicating on the merits of the medical claim itself, the appropriate course was to mandate the respondents to conduct a time-bound review

Furthermore, the court found that any salary withheld for periods where the applicant had "actually performed his duties" must be considered for release as per service rules

The respondents were further directed to consider the release of his salary for the period he actually performed duties

The court ordered that status quo, as on date shall be maintained and no coercive action be taken against the applicant until the respondents conclude their consideration of the case